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."
RSS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
hi steve got to go right now will be back with I hope will be clearer speech on this later.
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.
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
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)
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
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.
*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.
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.
*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.
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)
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
*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’.
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
"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.
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.
*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 yearsâ€Â
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….?
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.
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.....
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?
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.
*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.
‘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?â€Â
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
I can only assume Star is around 'thumbing down' my comments. that is about par for her.
"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.
Mathetes,
“but "macro-evolution" is something else.â€Â
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."â€Â
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.???
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.
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.
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.
"You'll change your belief about Jesus once you enter into eternity but unfortunately it will be too late."
hmmm, sounds like fear mongering rhetoric....who could that be. Pattie?
Darwin^2 = Star2
Nice try, but you're not fooling anyone.
believer,
"but are there any accounts of scientists or any one observing macro-evolution"
Google 'observed speciation' Booyaaa.
"discovering living examples of for lack of a better term the missing links required for macro-evolution to take place? '
Meet some hominids...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
and others...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY
The biological evidence of ERV's and HC2, are quite literally, a living fossil record.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
ccccccc,
In case you have forgotten what you wrote:
uneducated preachers
wacko pseudoscientists
ID nuts
compulsive liars
People have been patient with your behavior, ccccccc. Don't push it.
Time for me to go...it's my birthday and my wife made plans. :-)
Later....
ccccc-"I wouldn't ask anyone to accept anything without studying the evidence for it. Biologists call biological evolution a fact not because they think it's a fact. They call it a fact because the evidence for it is overwhelming."
So...why are you against critical thinking? If what you say is true then it would only be an exercise in logic? Yes, you did say you didn't want this law to pass and no there are no religious components to the law.
cccccccc
Many people that have died have come back to life. They had experiences involving their sight, their emotions, their hearing, their physical sensations, and their memory. Some give accounts of hellish experiences and others heavenly experiences.
There are no atheists in the fox hole. Listen to this recounting of Voltaire proclaimations on his death bed:
Taken from "To Hell and Back" by Maurice Rawlings on page 104:
"And then the self-reliant Voltaire, whose 'pen was mightier than the sword,' whose intellect and honors could never be excelled, was now excelled by a stroke that was slowly causing his death. When his friends visited, they described this unexpected situation:
He cursed them to their faces; and, as his distress was increased by their presence, he repeatdly and loudly exclaimed: 'Begone! It is you that have brought me to my present condition. Leave me, I say; begone! What a wretched glory is this which you have produced to me!' Hoping to allay his anguish by a written recantation, he had it prepared, signed it, and saw it witnessed. But it was all unavailing. For two months he was tortured with such agony as led him to gnash his teeth in impotent rage against God and man...Then, turning his face, he would cry out, 'I must die-abandoned of God and of men!'...Even his nurse repeatedly said, 'For all the wealth of Europe I would never see another infidel die.' "
When you die you too will know that there is a God. Your death bed experience may not be as dramatic as Voltaire's but it will, nevertheless, be one full of fear.
cccccccc-"I slander those with whom I disagree? You're making things up. That's called lying."
Now, now.... the level of a persons social graces are measured by those with more or less. To many here cccccc simply lacks some of the social graces. Yes, cccccc, you do come across as rude and obnoxious! In my younger days my level of tacked was compared with a Sherman tank.... Some say I've mellowed a bit in my old age. Maybe you realize it and maybe you don't. Those here are simply letting you know how you come across.
See what happens when I go to a school board meeting? I come back and I have to go to previous pages to see what I missed and who is this Darwin*2?
Just for the sake of stiring the pot...it was reported that Darwin recanted evolution on his death bed. Some say it was sincere and some say it was the result of delusional state when he was near death. Just wanted to throw that ball into play.... :-)
Just for the record...I learned a long time ago that each person in different and it is very unfair to pidgeon-hole people. I would never intentionally lump all evolutionists into one group any more than I would lump all Creationists into one group.
ccccccc said:"There are zero competent biologists who claim that the development of new species is impossible. There are exactly zero competent biologists who deny that all life is related and all life living today developed from other species."
Here is another generalization. My friend is a respected PhD biologist who did research + taught at Vandy. So are you lying or generalizing? Or both?
Re: slander - your own words below convict you. You cannot have a rational discussion without calling people names. That's behavior I would expect from a teenager or younger. Try to play nice, ok?
cccccccc - you sound like a very unhappy man. Full of anger. You work so hard to put Christians down and their God and it is getting you absolutely nowhere. Your desire to put Christians down is unsatiable. You'll never achieve what you are looking for. I think you should spend your energies in something else that at least will bring you a little enjoyment.
cccccccc - You'll change your belief about Jesus once you enter into eternity but unfortunately it will be too late. How sad that is.
Darwin^2, your use of a scientist's name to preach your disgusting hell belief is repulsive. What an insult to one of the greatest scientists in history to use his name to spread lies about him. You should be ashamed of yourself. You disgrace your religion.
I bet IQ for IQ that I am smarter than you!
"If you continue in your rants"
What are you talking about? I'm answering questions. Do you want me to ignore questions that people ask me?
What are you doing besides impersonating somebody who was thousands of times smarter than you are?
cccccccc - You are making yourself look foolish. If you continue in your rants everyone will know that all evolutionists are emtpy headed with not an original thought in their heads. If you think that I was right at Origin of Species,boy, you don't know what I think now that I am in eternity. I found out that Jesus was right all along and now I have to suffer for all eternity for my sins of unbelief and rejecting the Word of God that says Jesus is the Son of God who died for my sins, rose from the dead so I could be forgiven for my sins of unbelief, lying, stealing, and coutless other sins that we all commit one time or another in life. Repent, receive Jesus as Savior and Lord and you won't have to come here where I am, which is hell.
believer said "you say scientists have seen the evolutionary process, but are there any accounts of scientists or any one observing macro-evolution or discovering living examples of for lack of a better term the missing links required for macro-evolution to take place?
wbmoore said "the fact is, there are many scientists who do not hold to macro-evolution. Unfortunately, anyone who publishes such will be denigrated and will loose their jobs because it does not toe the party line."
Creationists define macro-evolution to be the development of new species from other animals.
Creationists accept evolution, but they believe there is some invisible barrier that makes evolution come to a complete stop before a species starts looking too different from its ancient ancestors.
There are zero competent biologists who claim that the development of new species is impossible. There are exactly zero competent biologists who deny that all life is related and all life living today developed from other species.
The small handful of fake scientists who deny the facts of evolution (or what creationists call macroevolution) work for Bible colleges or the Discovery Institute. These worthless pseudoscientists have never contributed anything important to biology. The Discovery Institute has never discovered anything.
Wbmoore, your "anyone who publishes such will be denigrated and will loose their jobs because it does not toe the party line" is dishonest. Any biologist who could disprove evolution and could provide convincing evidence for the idea that evolution is false, would become famous. Other scientists would jump on it, wanting to share the fame. But the truth is evolution has been tested for 150 years and it has passed every test. An important point to understand is evidence is required for everything. If somebody says something must have been magically created but can't provide any real evidence for the magic, what do you expect a real scientist is going to do about it? The answer is the wacko's ideas will be ignored and/or laughed at. You got to have evidence. If you got it and if it can be tested repeatedly and successfully by other scientists, then it will be accepted. If there's no evidence for a new idea then it's going to be ignored.
Believer, the answer to your question is biologists can determine evolutionary relationships with 100% accuracy. For example, using DNA analysis they have determined that the closest non-human relatives (distant cousins) of humans are the chimpanzee apes. There is absolutely no doubt about this evolutionary relationship. If you deny this fact which biologists can see with their own eyes then you might as well also claim the earth is flat.
Don't believe me? Then google "evolution evidence" and get to work. I'm not interested in explaining science to the willfully ignorant.
mathetes said "You continue to generalize about both sides and slander those with whom you disagree. It is a real shame you cannot seem to follow the forum rules. Your arguments would seem more rational without all that."
I slander those with whom I disagree?
You're making things up. That's called lying.
The existence of creationists is an insult to the hard work and integrity of thousands of biologists. To be a creationist a person has to believe virtually every biologist in the world is dishonest and incompetent. Creationists owe the biologists an apology.
mathetes, instead of spending your time lying about me, why don't you provide some evidence for your belief in magical creation. Also, why don't you explain God's technique when He created creatures out of nothing. Does He say "poof" or "abracadabra" or what? Does He wave a magic wand? I need evidence to accept your magic nonsense and you have nothing. Not one shred of evidence for your ancient creation myth. Your magical creation is nothing more than the wishful thinking of people too lazy to study science.
c, you say scientists have seen the evolutionary process, but are there any accounts of scientists or any one observing macro-evolution or discovering living examples of for lack of a better term the missing links required for macro-evolution to take place?
Politics and science is like a man with a cow. Moo On!
Al Gore Rules!
I am shocked that Christians let the meatheads have total control of what is taught. Albert believed in God, Newton believed in God, so who is wiser the ACLU or NEA?
the fact is, there are many scientists who do not hold to macro-evolution. Unfortunately, anyone who publishes such will be denigrated and will loose their jobs because it does not toe the party line.
ccccccc,
You continue to generalize about both sides and slander those with whom you disagree. It is a real shame you cannot seem to follow the forum rules. Your arguments would seem more rational without all that.
"In short, I wasn't there. I didn't see it."
The biologists can see it. They can see the entire history of life by comparing the DNA of living creatures. From DNA analysis they can see the history of life in amazing detail. You have no idea how incredibly powerful this evidence is. That's why I encourage creationists to get to work and study it. They can believe in God if they want, nobody cares. But their creation myths have got to go. It's ridiculous to disregard what biologists can see with their own eyes just to cling to a thousands of years old myth.
Daniel Paul said: My problem with your arguement is that you act like evolution is to be beyond question. How unscientific! You sound just like the dogmatic creationists.... "Just accept what we say without thinking about it because we say it's fact."
I wouldn't ask anyone to accept anything without studying the evidence for it. Biologists call biological evolution a fact not because they think it's a fact. They call it a fact because the evidence for it is overwhelming.
I'm talking about evidence you refuse to study and refuse to understand. I'm talking about evidence you don't even know about because you have made little or no effort to look for it.
I suggested earlier on this thread that creationists should google "evidence evolution" and get to work. Of course I don't expect them to do anything. Creationists have a long history of ignoring modern scientific discoveries. They never try to understand anything.
I don't accept the facts of evolution just because virtually every single biologist accepts it. I have been studying the evidence for several years. I plan to continue studying it for the rest of my life, but I have no hope of studying all of it because it's too massive and it's still growing more rapidly than ever.
Biologists have healthy disagreements about the countless small details of evolution, but because of the powerful evidence for the basic facts of evolution, they agree completely that evolution is the strongest and most important fact of biology.
On my side I have mountains of evidence and virtually the entire scientific community.
On your side you have some uneducated preachers and the wacko pseudoscientists and lawyers of the Discovery Institute, which has never discovered anything.
"ID says there was an intelligence at work but it could be an alien for all they know."
The ID nuts know who their imaginary designer is, the Christian God. The Discovery Institute doesn't like to talk about their magical designer for one reason: they are compulsive liars who are trying to disguise supernatural magic to look scientific.
agentorangex--is it my download or are some of the posts have some text transposition? It's hard to read some of your post.
Still, to be honest, I do like batting ideas around and finding out what the latest data from both sides are. Quite a bit of the time it's like eggs. They're bad for you then they're good for you. Then they're bad for you again. Then there's a mixed report. IT'S AN EGG FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! You either eat them or you don't....
The study of evolution has always been stymied by people like cccccc who use evolution to 'prove' creation is a myth. In short, I wasn't there. I didn't see it. I prefer your view of science that it is about looking at facts and not trying to prove or disprove the existance of God. As we develop 'new' science we get a new perspective on the data.
Truth be known, I don't think any amount of science is going to change the view of either side of the "Is God Dead?" question. The proof? cccccc's post!
cccccc- I TOTALLY agree with the wall between science and religion! Here's the problem...the humanist religion uses evolution the same way may God based religions use creation. Teaching evolution promotes the humanist religion. When the US Supreme Court deemed humanism as a religion it accepted evolution as a part of humanism.
It's a shame you have such little respect for the great minds of the recent past.
Just fyi, much of magic is science! There is QUITE a bit of physics and many other areas of science which are used to create magic. In fact, I had some science teachers who used magic to teach principles of science.
Now, I didn't see anywhere in this bill where teachers were required to teach creation. In fact, I wouldn't support that. Science class is for science. Here's what I want...I want students and teachers to explore evolution in and of itself. I want students to be able to learn how to think scientifically. My problem with your arguement is that you act like evolution is to be beyond question. How unscientific! You sound just like the dogmatic creationists.... "Just accept what we say without thinking about it because we say it's fact." If it's really that sound then what's the problem with some critical thinking? I would think it would be something you would welcome!
ID is not another name for creation. They do share some traits but they are quite different. Creationists hold to a specific account of creation from a religious text. ID says there was an intellegence at work but it could be an alien for all they know.
It truely is a shame you have had such hurtful experiences with 'christians' that you are so fiesty. Yes, it's quite obvious your distaste for anything Christian. However, allowing one's hurts to influence their science is not scientific. It is being closed minded.
On Friday, the American Association for the Advancement of Science's CEO and the publisher of Science magazine Alan I. Leshner wrote another letter to Gov. Jindal urging him to veto Senate Bill 733.
The bill disingenuously implies that particular theories, including evolution, are controversial among scientists. ... In short, there is virtually no controversy about evolution among researchers, many of whom, like you, are deeply religious.
What about intelligent design, which you addressed in your recent interview? Because it is not science, but a concept based on a religious belief, intelligent design might be an appropriate topic for a course on philosophy or world religions. But it has no place in a science classroom. From a scientific perspective, there is simply no way to test for the presence or absence of God or another "designer." From a legal perspective, intelligent design comes from a single religious point of view, and a federal judge appropriately ruled that teaching it in science class is unconstitutional.
In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a Louisiana "creation science" law. Rather than step backward, look to the future by seeking to provide Louisiana students with a firm understanding of evolution and other essential scientific concepts so they can compete for high-skill jobs in an increasingly high-tech world economy. Asserting that there are controversies about these concepts among scientistsâ€â€when in fact there are notâ€â€will only confuse students, not enlighten them. I urge you to protect the future of science education in your state by rejecting this bill.
http://tinyurl.com/5zc56u
DP,
“What we understand about science is subject to change and is based completely on the person who is using the data.â€Â
No, what we understand about the world is based on evidence, and as technology advances new evidence is continuously revealed and this evidence must be collectively used as well within the model/theory for which it relates to.
“Peking man was apparently built up from the tooth of what modern testing said was a breed of boar.â€Â
This is wrong, completely and utterly. Peking man is one specimen of Homo Erectus, which is a well documented hominid species. And actually, Peking man included a nearly full skull and other bones, it wasn’t simply ‘just a tooth’, you’re thinking of ‘Nebraska man’.
“Java man was tested and found to have arthritis (hunched) and only a few hundred years old.’
Huuuuh? Java man is another specimen of homo erectus, and from what I can recall didn’t have arthritis, you’re thinking of one specimen of homo Neandethalensis which exhibited that. A few 100 years old, are you kidding?
DP,
“They put disks on the first lander because of 'billions' of years of dust only to find less than 15k years by their theory.â€Â
They put disks on all the moon Landers, its just sort of required for landing stability. Prior to the USSR satellite that visited the Moon we weren’t sure on the dust deposit levels and we later found out that the Moons accumulation of dust is actually very slow.
‘Many 'evolutionists' take evolution to disprove the existance of God.â€Â
many theists do as well, most notably the YEC variety, as in their eyes, if god wasn’t out and about poofing this things magically, then they can’t make sense of it all in a natural view. What you say, no Magic? No, no, no, says the creationist, we NEED magic, otherwise we have no purpose. This is more or less their view in the matter.
“The problem Creationists have is the between species jumps where DNA has definate structural differences.â€Â
Say what? Definite structural differences? Like what? We can activate the relic genes in birds (chickens) during their development to cause them to grow teeth (reptilian teeth at that) and its small genetic change, it’s not a whole translocation or genes, its merely activating normally relic genes that are no longer expressed.
So a species to species jump is ok, but anything more, is just too much? Why? Such evolution isn’t overnight, it’s long term and collective. It’s not an ape giving birth to a fully formed human if that’s what you think.
“To a Christian, saying we came from slime instead of dirt is to say God is telling a lieâ€Â
So slime is somehow more indigent that dirt? I think you’re overlooking what ‘dirt/dust’ could/does mean. Is it possible its referring instead to the dust/dirt particles of simply good ol matter?
abhodim
“, the "creationist" position, do you see this as one mind-set, or a number of schools of thoughtâ€Â
There are many types of creationism. Old earth, young earth, flat earth ( no pun), day age, and others.
“And please don't tell me creationistic thinking is evolving. I couldn't stand the irony.â€Â
The irony is they are in some respects evolving, at least their tacts are. The ideas of YEC can’t be sold scientifically, and this is why ID Creationism doesn’t refer to any such biblical references or nonsense of a young earth.
Hello schumacr
Maybe you have started writing in tounges?
Kind regards
Steve
Whoops. I meant "Once life got a foothold here", not "One life got a foothold here".
schumacr asked "False how?". He was responding to the quote from Gould "Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false."
He also said "... stop trying to use evolution to prove/disprove God."
He also said "If you want to settle back and accept an eternal universe, go ahead, but when you do you throw out all your empirical science and accept it solely on the basis of faith. Collapsing universes, string theory, aliens seeding the earth, etc., are all nice thoughts but they have no real evidence to support them..."
schumacr, thanks for your comments.
You asked a good question. Why is creation science (also known as intelligent design creationism, also known as Bible creationism) false?
Biologists and biology teachers know creationism is false because the diversity of life has been explained by science. It's called biological evolution. Virtually all biologists accept the facts of evolution because of the evidence, especially the newer extremely powerful evidence from molecular biology, which I noticed has been explained repeatedly on this blog by agentorange and others.
I agree that evolution (or any other scientific fact) does not disprove God. It just makes God unnecessary to explain the diversity of life. There will always be other places to hide the God-of-the-gaps. Also, science does not care about whether God exists or not. Science is separate from religions. Science is neither atheistic nor theistic.
I'm not too interested in how the universe began, and that has nothing to do with biological evolution. The "aliens seeding the earth" is an idiotic idea in my opinion. There's still no consensus about how the first living cells developed, but the scientists working on this problem have a lot of good ideas. Until the problem is solved, it could be a good place to hide God until scientists chase it away. It seems impossible to me for life to not develop on a planet like earth. One idea is life developed from organic matter from the countless comets that crashed into earth 4 billion years ago. One life got a foothold here, scientists know that it eventually evolved into the millions of creatures we can see today, and even more creatures that are now extinct.
Please continue believing in God if you want, but creationism has got to go. It didn't belong in the 20th century and certainly doesn't belong in the 21st century. Biological evolution is now one of the strongest facts of science and with every new discovery it has become stronger.
Sigh... White flag. Not sure what's happening. Again, apologies all..
Wow - they must have changed editors on this board - my last post was all scrambled. Apologies... Let's try again:
<< because it is false… >>
False how? Is this the same Stephen Jay Gould who wrote: “Science simply cannot adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.â€Â, Scientific American 267, 1992, 118. How can he say the notion and concept of God creating the universe is false in one breath, yet write something that says they can’t comment on God in another? If you can’t be sure, then why stifle the discussion?
My advice to all on this board – both Christians and non – stop trying to use evolution to prove/disprove God. You can’t. Evolution is impotent in this regard because it can’t answer the basic philosophical question of: Why do we have something rather than nothing at all? It is the question of existence that needs to be settled and evolution only deals with change in existing beings. It is either matter before mind or mind before matter – an eternal universe or an eternal Creator - there are no other options.
If you want to settle back and accept an eternal universe, go ahead, but when you do you throw out all your empirical science and accept it solely on the basis of faith. Collapsing universes, string theory, aliens seeding the earth, etc., are all nice thoughts but they have no real evidence to support them or they commit the logical fallacy of ‘appeal to the future’ (one day science will prove how the big bang happened). Further, the fact of an effect always needing to resemble its cause is a problem. When you can explain to me how impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral matter accidentally created beings who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morality, let me know.
<< because it is false… >>
False how? Is this the same Stephen Jay Gould who wrote: “Science simply cannot adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.â€Â, Scientific American 267, 1992, 118. How can he say the notion and concept of God creating the universe is false in one breath, yet write something that says they can’t comment on God in another? If you can’t be sure, then why stifle the discussion?
My advice to all on this board – both Christians and non – stop trying to use evolution to prove/disprove God. You can’t. Evolution is impotent in this regard because it can’t answer the basic philosophical question of: Why do we have something rather than nothing at all? It is the question of existence that needs to be settled and evolution only deals with change in existing beings. It is either matter before mind or mind before matter – an eternal universe or an eternal Creator - there are no other options.
If you want to settle back and accept an eternal universe, go ahead, but when you do you throw out all your empirical science and accept it solely on the basis of faith. Collapsing universes, string theory, aliens seeding the earth, etc., are all nice thoughts but they have no real evidence to support them or they commit the logical fallacy of ‘appeal to the future’ (one day science will prove how the big bang happened). Further, the fact of an effect always needing to resemble its cause is a problem. When you can explain to me how impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral matter accidentally created beings who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morality, let me know.
Daniel Paul, I don't care what Albert Einstein said. He was just one of thousands of scientists.
I can't imagine Einstein invoking Mr. God to solve any scientific problem. I don't think he ever said "God did it".
Einstein is dead. I'm interested in living scientists. I noticed even very religious scientists, if they are competent, never invoke God to solve a scientific problem. A good example is Francis Collins. He's very religious, but he doesn't invoke Mr. God in the lab.
There is a wall of separation between science and religions. Religious scientists respect this wall. They leave their religious beliefs at home when they go to work. They know they can't invoke God for anything, because God can't be tested. If something can't be tested, it's not science.
Getting back on topic, scientists have been criticizing this creationism bill that was passed by religious extremists who know nothing about science. Scientists and science teachers are against this bill and many of them are contacting the governor to ask him to veto it.
The reason they are against this bill is because it gives bad science teachers the freedom to lie about biology and/or teach pseudoscience including religious creation myths like intelligent design magic.
Invoking intelligent design = invoking God = invoking magic. Magic is not scientific and it doesn't belong in science education.
After the Supreme Court rejected another Louisiana law in 1987, creation science was renamed to intelligent design. Since the creationists lost in court again in 2005, intelligent design has been renamed to "strengths and weaknesses" and "academic freedom" and "teach the controversy". Whatever the Christian extremists call their creation myth, it's still magic and it's still doesn't belong in science education.
"Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?"
-- Stephen Jay Gould
Shadows in the library aired a couple of weeks ago. This weekends one was entitled "turn left", it was awesome!! and not giving too much away, the doctor is not even in it, spine tingling...only 4 episodes to go and its on a roll....have you seen Touchwood?
Our favourites episodes are "the war child" from the first series (are you my mummy?) and "Blink" from the last one (whatever you do....don't don't look away, don't blink).
Steve
"everything I leanrt about morality and obligation I learnt on the football pitch"
I think he also learned about broken bones, bruises, lost teeth... :-)
Ahh...rugby.....nothing quite like a cross between football (both), wrestling and field hockey (without the sticks of course)....
Just fyi...Shadows in the Library-Dr. Who just aired. How far behind are we here in the states. I know this has absolutely nothing to do with this topic but I'm curious.
You think cccccc will ever answer me about ol' Albert?
Yep, you call it soccer. But unlike your football its not a team of big girls blouses in shoulder pads and helmets (rugby players don't wear any such thing)its 90 minutes of pure poetry,angony, and ecstacy (well it can be),thats why its called the beautiful game...
I'm also reminded of the words of the French philosopher albert Camus who claimed "everything I leanrt about morality and obligation I learnt on the football pitch" he had a point.....
Steve
Steveh20--Democritus...now that is just slick as snot!
Exactly what were people 2000 years ago getting those kind of ideas from. Now, I found it interesting that Democritus was not remembered as a scientist but as a thinker who was trained in theology by the maggi (the same type of people who sought out Jesus). "The laughing philosopher." What a riot! I found some really good stuff on this guy at www.utm.edu (U of Tenn).
Something I have been pondering is the relationship between depth and width of intellegence. Has man's level of intellegence actually grown or just the amount of data and technology? Are 'primitive' people really somehow less intellegent or would they be 'smarter' with more data and technology?
In other terms, has the human computer really improved or just the data and software in the hard drive? Is it the human that has evolved or just his technology and data?
Many go camping to 'get back to nature' ie. live like the cave man. I'm not talking about those with the RVs, campers, motor bikes and Colman stoves (well, matches maybe).
Viking-"I agree with your statement that the concept of not allowing critical thinking in science class is a contradiction in terms. However critical thinking does not consist of allowing teachers to present misinformation and fraud to students as if it was valid data."
I absolutely agree! I had a 'World History' teacher in HS that said that where Moses crossed the Red Sea was in a place that was only about 18" deep. I raised my hand....
I said that the Egyptian army being defeated there was documented in text other than the Bible (as in secular). He agreed. So...I asked..."are you saying all of the men and horses of the Egyptian army drowned in 18 inches of water?" For some reason he didn't find that as cleaver as I did.... :-)
My point is simple. People on both sides (like cccccc) really are not looking for truth...they are looking for comfort for their beliefs. They don't want to be wrong so they 'use' science.
The true scientific mind can agree to disagree but keeps discussing the data. Science is a journey and not a destination. To me science is about watching the movie and always trying to guess how it's going to end. Until you get to the end...it's faith (even if you are right).
Critical thinking in the area of teaching evolution is to teach children how to learn. Perhaps this critical thinking will take away from evolution. Perhaps it will add to evolution. What's important is that children learn to not just take things at face value.
Jesus chewed out the Pharasies all the time for their insisting people accept what they believed. Jesus was a prime example of critical thinking. When you stop thinking you end up like Hitlers Germany.
steveh20...are you talking about what we across the pond call soccer?
Albert Einstein was the one who said it!!! Are you saying that he was someone who "obviously" didn't "even know what science is" and that his scientific progress came to a complete stop because of his belief in God?
You are as dogmatic (about evolution) as the Creationists you mock not to mention closed minded! To think Albert Einstein somehow foolish or uneducated is truely closed minded! Your post proves nothing but your own closed mindedness.
So, I have to ask. Do you really think Albert Einstein new nothing about science and was somehow afraid of educating himself in science? (I can't wait to hear the response to this question.)
B
The antibiotics killed the infection, the tiny wound is not part of the story apart from it being the doorway for the infection. If you accept that the antibiotics alone cleared the infection that has no bearing on God one way or the other at all.
Gutted!! Have drawn Crotia at work in a sweepstake for the Euro 2008 championship stood to win £160, they scored in the final minute of exrta time of the quarter final then Turky score in the last 10 seconds!!!!! And go to win on penalties....
I hate football, no I don't I love football.
Steve
steveh20, did the antibiotic heal the wound or kill the infection that was keeping the wound from being healed and as a result of the infection being gone now the wound could heal? But I'm really willing to agree to disagree with you on this one since chances are this discussion will come back to our personal points of view in the end. Go Ajax and Bayern Munchen!!!
Hello believer, nice to hear from you.
Earlier this year through a tiny cut on my knee I developed a very nasty infection which made my leg swell like a balloon (that enough infomation, believe me). It took two weeks to clear as the doctors worked through various antibotics till the right one was found. I was healed by the antibotics, that is what was ultimately resonsible for my healing.Is that a fair assumption?
As a matter of interest this does mean god does or does not exist.
Regards
Steve
Flagged myself.
c, I am not here to argue either for evolution or for creationism, but as far as eliminating God from the equation with regards to science that I want to speak to. You and I have had some good exchanges on several issues and I've thouroughly enjoyed them and yes at times been a little aggravated as well. There are many doctors I have spoken to who regardless of their belief in or not in God have one thing in common they all agree that the only thing they can do is prepare a body for healing that they themselves can heal no one that something other than medicine or surgery is ultimately responsible for the actual healing. So the question is who or what is ultimately responsible for healing? Well no doubt you know my answer already and I by no means want to force my answer on you, but I do want to challenge you to consider what is your honest answer to this very important question.
Daniel Paul: "Science without God is foolish."
Translation: Science without MAGIC is foolish.
You obviously don't even know what science is. Like most creationists, you would rather lie about science than study it.
Why are creationists so afraid of educating themselves? The mountains of evidence for evolution are available to everyone to study. A person could google "evidence evolution" and spend the rest of his life studying it. The creationists refuse to learn anything. They just repeat the same lies over and over again, not caring that everything they say has been refuted a long time ago.
What if scientists invoked God to solve scientific problems? What would that accomplish? If they said "I can't figure out this problem so therefore it was God's magic", scientific progress would come to a complete stop.
Invoking God is giving up. Invoking God is saying "I'm too stupid to understand, therefore it was magic."
This is why biology teachers and other science teachers never teach idiotic religious ideas like intelligent design creationism. Invoking intelligent design = invoking God = invoking magic. Magic is a childish useless idea and it doesn't belong in science education.
sorry about the strange stuff in my post it just popped up when I pasted comment in from word. Strange
Hi Daniel Paul,
I can’t agree with your conclusions. Yes our understanding of the natural world is subject to change based on the discovery of new evidence and the development of more accurately predictive scientific theories. Bu this is not based on the person using the data except in cases of incompetence or intentional fraud.
As in the your previous posts regarding fundamental structural differences in DNA and regarding the age of the Sun you once again have been misinformed regarding the facts. You state “Peking man was apparently built up from the tooth of what modern testing said was a breed of Boar†In relating this claim you are the victim of both incompetence and fraud. A quick source for correcting this misinformation can be found at http://www.geocities.com/a_and_e_uk/PerloffC8.htm. The facts do not change based on who is handling the data but as you can clearly see the facts can be misrepresented when agendas other than increasing human knowledge and understanding of the natural universe are the driving force for analysis of scientific data.
I do agree with your statement that there is no room for arrogant assumptions when it comes to science and that each discovery opens up new areas of inquiry and research. I don’t agree that from a broad view of things “we really know nothing†In the past 150 years more and more knowledge has been developed in a wide variety of scientific disciplines including geology, paleontology, astrophysics, biology etc. which all support the theory of evolution and provide increasingly greater insight into the actual processes involved. If your intent is to indicate that there is still much more to learn I agree. If by this you suggest that what we do know is likely to be radically overturned by some new evidence I just don’t see that.
I would agree with you that anyone trying to use the scientific method to prove or disprove the existence of God is arrogant. Any person who does this is not practicing science. This being said the fact that some persons attempt to misrepresent science for their own ends does not change the validity of that science including the enormous scientific evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution which just like the atomic theory and the Theory of Gravitation and the Cell theory, etc, etc is constantly being revised and refined with new information and discoveries to be increasingly more accurate in representing the natural universe and more powerful in predicting new discoveries.
I agree with your statement that the concept of not allowing critical thinking in science class is a contradiction in terms. However critical thinking does not consist of allowing teachers to present misinformation and fraud to students as if it was valid data.
Danielpaul
The writer of the letter to the Hewbrews was a little behind the times. The greeks were postulationg atomic theory, in the person of Democritus by 400 BCE at least 460 years before Paul (?) wrote those words. Its also quite intresting to note that his teachers also postulated atomic theory, so it most likely goes back even further.
Regards
Steve
So...what's the point of even discussing it? Those who went to seminary should have taken a class called apologetics. (No it is not the class where preachers to be learn how to appologize for all the bad jokes they will preach with there sermon points.)
In this class, the student preaches the sermon they have prepared and then everyone else tries to shread it! It's critical thinking. The idea is to learn that your own point of view is nothing to base a sermon on. It's not about you being right but the sermon being right and you being consistant with the truth of the Bible.
To be quite honest, critical thinking is a major part of being a Christian. It's also a vital part of science. The best computer in the world is only as good as it's data. At best, the data is fragmented with major puzzle pieces still missing. Darwin thought he had covered all the bases yet now even Darwinists use his work just as a guideline since more data has come to light.
Science without God is foolish. I believe that was a statement by Albert E himself. It is humility that allows each of us to look outside ourselves and learn.
Come into my parlor.... You found my point! What we understand about science is subject to change and is based completely on the person who is using the data. Peking man was apparently built up from the tooth of what modern testing said was a breed of boar. Java man was tested and found to have arthritis (hunched) and only a few hundred years old. What is true or not true is subject to change without notice in todays post modern world.
Too many on both sides make assumptions in their zeal to prove they are 'right'. Darwinism is about 150 years old now. Just as with medical science, I believe that should the Lord wait another 150 years...there will be a WHOLE new set of facts that show most of our data to be wrong or simply that all sides were 'young' in their understanding.
Don't mistake what I am saying. I am NOT saying any data is right or wrong. I'm just pointing out that there is no room for arrogant assumption when it comes to science. Those who understand science are humbled by it as they understand that every 'answer' seems to open 10,000 questions. Very little of especially this area of science is even known. We have theories and some bones and stuff. But...from a broad view of things we really know nothing...all of us.
100 years ago medical science was making 'breakthroughs' which are now looked at as being great at the time but a doctor would get sued if they tried it today! Getting your appendix out just 20 years ago was days in the hospital. Now it's out-patient!
This is why I challenge the dogmatic evolutionists (or Creationists) that they are letting their desire to prove or disprove the existance of God cloud their judgement of science. DNA mapping was QUITE a breakthrough. Yet, on the one, in 150 years it will simply be elemental science on which much medical science will be based. On the other hand, "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible." Hebrews 11:3 Not bad for a 2000 year old statement since the concept of atoms and DNA didn't come about until recently! It was simply a free standing statement concerning faith. Just how did this statement come to be?
To me, the concept of not allowing critical thinking is science class is a contradiction in terms! Isn't critical thinking the very basis of science?
The more I learn the more I realize the less I actually know.
Agent
Apologies for not commenting on the vid's I normally assume they are not for me as its a bit like preaching to the choir, if you get my drift. I'm off this weekend and will be catching some up and let you know what I think. I will of course also searc "you tube" to see if there are any new clips of Christopher Hitchens on Fox News which I always enjoy greatly. Oh how I love, Hannity, O' Reilley etc..all we have is the BBC .....
Steve
P.s The one good programme on Fox though is Red Eye
Hi Daniel Paul,
You have used the Sun would be to big statement a few times on different threads. Unfortunately you have been misinformed as to what has been observed and determined regarding the Sun's life cycle. Here is some well accepted information you can find at wikipedia and lots of other locations.
The Sun is about halfway through its main-sequence evolution, during which nuclear fusion reactions in its core fuse hydrogen into helium. Each second, more than 4 million tonnes of matter are converted into energy within the Sun's core, producing neutrinos and solar radiation; at this rate, the Sun will have so far converted around 100 Earth-masses of matter into energy. The Sun will spend a total of approximately 10 billion years as a main sequence star.
Working backwards you would need to add 100 earth masses of matter to the present day sun.
The current mass of the sun is around 1.9891 ×1030 kg[1] or about 332,946 Earths. This means the total loss of mas through conversion in the last about 4.5 billion years has been about 3 thousandths of 1% of the total mass.
I do believe I found the source of your misinformation. It most likely comes from this source
"John A. Eddy (Harvard -Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder) and Aram A. Boornazian (a mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston) have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century…corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour."
The problem is that
First, Eddy's paper was in fact never published. He and his co-author published an abstract [1] in 1979, but it quickly became clear that their data was wrong. A 1980 paper [2] pointed out that the data had been gathered across 90 years by 7 different astronomers, and they used several slightly different methods. When you correct for these differences, there is no shrinkage.
Second, all of the data available in 1979 is now obsolete. Ultra-precise astronomical measurements were made in the 1980's and 1990's with new high-tech equipment. For example, the Solar Disk Sextant project used balloons to carry special telescopes to 120,000 feet, above most of the Earth's atmosphere. The shrinkage implied by Eddy's data is totally ruled out by the new data.
Unfortunately there are groups that continue to misrepresent scientists such as Eddy and thus intentionally mislead sincere persons such as yourself.
Daniel Paul,
You state
Many 'evolutionists' take evolution to disprove the existance of God. You are right I have seen this argument put forth by some atheists. But just because some people try to misuse science to support a belief system does not prove that the science is flawed. Rather it just shows they are misusing science.
Daniel Paul,
Hi you state "The problem Creationists have is the between species jumps where DNA has definate structural differences". I think someone must have misinformed you regarding the structure of DNA and regarding the differences in DNA between species. What do you mean by Structural differences in DNA could you describe such a structural difference between for example humans and chimps. I do not believe that you are correct in your facts and thus your argument is invalid. By the way I am a Christian who believes in God as the creator of the universe.
Abdohim,
Hi I know you did not adress that request to me and my response may be presumptuous however I think you might find this site to be on target to your question. The scholarly article reviews the historical roots of this controversy expanding the understanding well beyond a simplistic Young Earth Creation vs. Darwinian Evolution debate. You might find it interesting. I found it fascinating and dense in its content.
http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~ronald/pubs/Typology-Reconsidered.pdf
Agentorage,
I have been reading through the past series of posts with great fascination. I wish to thank you for the tact and courtesy you have displayed (along with all the other posters from both camps that can debate without malice). I'm intrigued by the amount of detail you have presented in the area of evolution. I am curious about one matter, though, and I can't help but think that my question is a tad bit off the flow of argument as it has been developing. If you feel that it doesn't merit reply, so be it. But help me overcome this curiosity as one member of the evolutionary camp. In dealing with the opposition, the "creationist" position, do you see this as one mind-set, or a number of schools of thought. I've been told that ID is the latest tactic of this group, but could there be many branches of creationism?
And please don't tell me creationistic thinking is evolving. I couldn't stand the irony.
"It does not address the questions of the origin of life or the origin of the universe."
I agree! The problem is with Darwins "Origin of Species". Many 'evolutionists' take evolution to disprove the existance of God. There IS undeniable adaptation and change WITHIN species. The problem Creationists have is the between species jumps where DNA has definate structural differences. To a Christian, saying we came from slime instead of dirt is to say God is telling a lie.
I think you understand that my concern is all the questions will be answered. We will see how it was all done. I believe God will explain it all! The problem is by then it will be too late for some. That data to change the theory of evolution will be provided in full.
agentorangex, sorry about the vids...I have dial up. I would be older and grayer before one of those downloaded. Do you know those sites are so rude that they only allow a short time to download or they just cut you off? How rude! I'll have to let someone else deal with that.
The only way it could have been debunked would be for the formula to change or for certain prams to be discounted. How about the depth of lunar dust? They put disks on the first lander because of 'billions' of years of dust only to find less than 15k years by their theory.
"If you take the formula by which the sun gets smaller as it burns and reverse the formula the size of the sun changes drastically towards the billion year mark."
DP, I don't know from which site you're pulling this from, but this is one of the oldest debunked arguements out there. Next you're going to tell us there isn't enough dust on the moon, or salt in the oceans.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof1
I wish for once, I could get a response about some of my vids I put up. just once? Steve, anyone....Bueler?
viking,
Bravo, well put. What you should also note is that the Phylogenetic tree representation reveals how overall the accuracy of the clad system is/was, and where it was wrong in others.Largely it's been correct overall, but some close relationships are only shown via DNA.
"It turns out the relationships between organisms are extremely complex and the evolutionary paths are much more complex than Darwin conceived of"
Indeed it is, but in the end the model as desribed via DNA will reveal still the nested hiearchy which is what was also produced from Carolus Linnaeus's system of organization. The DNA analysis will further confirm relationships, how close or far apart they are genetically and evolutionary time wise speaking and it will show what we missed b/c we lacked such information prior and what other predictions we can make based on such results.
Darwin and others first preposed the idea of our shared ancestory with extant apes, but outside of simply anatomical structure, there was little else evidence at his time to demonstrate this. 150 years later we've found the required fossils to fill ithe gaps to demonstrate this, and DNA mapping of both ours and chimps DNA further confirms it. Agian, not just in the overall likenesso of our genomes, but in how in unique spots we can show, quite convincingly based on ERV insertions, and the evidence of fusion in our 2nd chromosome that indeed we are related.
"looking at life after it’s already been around for billions of years " With all theory involving math it must work backwards as well as forwards. If you take the formula by which the sun gets smaller as it burns and reverse the formula the size of the sun changes drastically towards the billion year mark. This would make changes such as either our distance from the sun or the size and possibly the speed of the orbit around the sun which would extend the 'year' way over 365 days. Either way, it messes up the evolutionary timeline quite a bit. It also opens a can of possibilities.
Hi Mathetes,
You asked “How does something of one genus become a new genus with several fundamentally different characteristics?” One of the problems with this question is that it is based on a Linnaean taxonomy system.
Carolus Linnaeus (1707 - 1778) was born. His great work, the Systema Naturae, ran through twelve editions during his lifetime (1st ed. 1735). He is best known for his introduction of a method of modern classification; he created systematic zoology and botany in their present form.
Now while Linnaeus was a giant and a genius he did not have access to the facts of molecular biology and particularly DNA that we have today. He had to rely on a phonetic system ( grouping of organism based on overall similarity). As a result his taxonomic system is now known to have often been wrong in terms of the grouping of species because sometimes things that seemed closely related from an observed “fundamental characteristics” point of view turn out to be dramaticly different in their DNA and other organisms that seem to be very different in their “fundamental Charecteristics actually are much more closely related re DNA.
This is ok if one is using the taxonomy for everyday purposes where the functional characteristics of an organism are the important issue. However it is a big problem if the purpose of the classification is to describe the genetic biodiversity and evolutionary relatedness of a group of organisms.
This is sort of like the fact that Newtonian physics works just fine for most everyday situations but for certain purposes it just won’t work and you have to use Einstinian or even Quantum Physics in order to understand what is going on and accurately predict phenomena.
In order to reflect the actual relationships of organisms to each other some scientists have developed a system termed the Phylogenetic tree which through DNA analysis shows the genetic or evolutionary interrelationships of different organisms. (This can be thought of as an analog of the classic tree of life brought up to date using current knowledge of molecular biology) However even this approach to classification we now know is not accurate in as much as it can not represent hybridization and lateral gene transfer. Also it is now known that the phylogentic trees of a single genes or protein common to a group of species may differ from the phylogenic trees of other genes or proteins within the same group of organisms.
At present the most promising classification system seems to be the work on the PhyloCode which does not assume a tree structure.
It turns out the relationships between organisms are extremely complex and the evolutionary paths are much more complex than Darwin conceived of. Like Linaeus he was working with the best observations he had at the time but new information allows us to build new more accurate models with greater and greater predictive power and utility.
mathetes,
"Okay, sounds like a lot of extrapolation and little evidence, but thanks for taking time to reply"
you didn't ask for evidence. Here I have been on this site for months discussing the evidence, i can point to just a few right now which support evolution at or above the species level. Here, review them, research them review the sources and tell me what you think. And this is only 3 bits of evidence, from millions. Such evidence like these can't be understood any other way but by inferign macro evolution has occured. Think about it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
"(He may have used them simply because he thought I could understand the concepts more easily that way.) "
This is really the only reason they are used. it helps to classify them and it makes it more understandable how such micro changes can be reflected over longer periods to add up to such macro changes. Mostly though, you'll hear just evolution.
'He agrees there is evidence of microevolution (also called speciation or variation within a genus), but he knows there is no proof of macroevolution at this time.'
No proof? What do you call those I just cited above. go ahead, research the details, they are well cited.. Macro evoltuion is defined as a speciation event, anyhing at or above the levels of species in evolution and this we do have documented cases of. Google 'moon butterfly evolution'. Google 'observerd speciations' and variants of that, plenty out there.
So your biologist friend admits the fossils and such exist, then how in his mind do such new forms arise? Is he appealing to some invisable agent who swoops down and recreates them peiodically from scratch and makes them look very similar to both extinct and extant species?
When we examine the fossil record we do find major life forms, like fish (lobe finned) and early tetraods, now the question is, if evolution is really true we should be able to find some intermediate forms between in such a major change. So, do we find this? Yes, we do and the record keeps getting bigger all the time and each one we find fits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
WOW look Mom, it's not a lizard, or a fish, it's something else! it has a amphibian like head, but pectoral phins, and scales like a fish and other intermediate features.
I am not a biologist or even any type of recognized scientist but I will take a shot at a brief informed rational description of evolution.
The theory of evolution is the best explanation available for the observed facts of biodiversity and change of species over time in response to changes in the environment. It is the only explanation which is consistent with observations and experiments in a wide variety of scientific disciplines including biology, paleontology, geology, physics, chemistry, cosmology, astrophysics, etc. It is a scientific theory constantly being refined and improved in its details within a consistent general framework. It does not address the questions of the origin of life or the origin of the universe. It does not deny or affirm the existence of God or any supernatural phenomena. The theory is open to scientific critique and revision to conform with new evidence and this occurs constantly as scientists unlock more secrets of nature through experimentation and observation.
I think I have words left over.
Okay, this is the part that really gets me....
I'm going to assume that "most" I d'ers believe the Earth to be at least 4.5 billion years old (and nothing I have read means I should think otherwise). We see from Cambrian strata onwards increasing complexity of life(and before this time actually..) so what happened, did some entity interviene to make life more complex as one works through the strata, whats happening?
its a fair question ..we see increasing complexity in strata, why.....?
SteveI
AO,
Okay, sounds like a lot of extrapolation and little evidence, but thanks for taking time to reply. I'm still digesting our previous discussions on it and reading more whenever I can find time.
You asked about my friend; thanks for your concern. He is one of those exceptions many evolutionists do not want to acknowledge - a real bonafide scientist who does not believe in "macro-evolution" - I know you don't think real scientists don't use the term, but you are mistaken. He is the one who introduced me to the terms micro- and macroevolution. (He may have used them simply because he thought I could understand the concepts more easily that way.) He agrees there is evidence of microevolution (also called speciation or variation within a genus), but he knows there is no proof of macroevolution at this time. Much as he might like to find it, he admits that that part is conjecture based on fossils, etc., and it has not been observed, tested, and repeated in an experiment as demanded by scientific methodology.
“Your Wiki definition says nothing about anything above the speciation level.’
Let’s be realistic here, he wanted a very simplistic definition in 150 words or less, there is no way topics like genetic drifting, modern synthesis, natural selection, allelic frequency can all be discussed enough in detail to explain evolution at the species lever. Therefore, the only alternative was o talk about the small allelic frequencies from within a population. This is why I gave the link to Wiki for a more thorough definition on what it all involves
‘How does the bacteria become something more than a bacteria?’
The same process essentially, but its extrapolated across much longer periods of time. The time it took multicellular bacteria to finally come to evolve to complex life to around 600 million years, it wasn’t something that *wham* just happened. And by complex life I don’t mean a fully formed fish, I mean just simple creatures, like trilobites.
‘How does something of one genus become a new genus with several fundamentally different characteristics?”
A genus isn’t much higher above the species level, the characteristic aren’t that far ranging, not as much as say an order or family.
Remember that you’re looking at animals which have diversified many times over and so this branching out originally consisted of generally only species as well, but due to the way speciation’s occur, you have higher and higher levels built out of the branching out. You’re looking at millions and millions of years of this continual branching out, speciation and extinction.
You’re looking at life after it’s already been around for billions of years and undergone huge amounts of speciation upon speciation. An original founder species or genus diversified, further and further becoming genetically isolated (just like with species) but we’re looking at the after affects, after its hand time to branch out and fill in new biomes and niches.
If my children want to listern to that, its up to them, I would however let them know I considered it intellectual porn.....
Steve
Flagged myself
<a href="http://www.jeremiahfilms.com/released/news/062008b.html ">The Video - Louisiana Coalition for Science - is afraid of!</a>
please view it and decide if it is OK for your children to watch!
Wouldn't it be impossible to come up with a "succinct" definition for evolution because it would keep evolving? Sorry, just had to go there....... :=)
Pinning down the definition seems like a good idea, so we all know what we're talking about.
AO,
Your Wiki definition says nothing about anything above the speciation level. From your post below and previous posts, I understand that new species are formed (depending on which definition of species is used) by isolation and/or changes in genes by HGT or mutation. That's fine. How does the bacteria become something more than a bacteria? How does something of one genus become a new genus with several fundamentally different characteristics? Seems like that is what is required in the popular explanation of evolution and the tree of life.
Doc,
“succinct 150 word definition of evolution”
Happy to oblige, but its not something which can so succinctly put into only 150 words, or learned in only a seminar, it requires some deep reading. Evolution (as it relates to biology) at the most fundamental level describes the allelic frequency changes within and amongst populations of organisms. An allele in genetics refers to the part responsible for a particular trait, IE brown blue, green eyes and the % of change within a population over time is referred to the allelic frequency changes, the lowest level of evolution.
At the larger end of the spectrum evolutionary theory describes the processes involved with genetic isolation, genetic drifting, new protein synthesis, and also the processes involved with organism speciation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
“I know that most of you do not want to explain the origin of life which seems to be the thing that evolution is credited for here in the mainstream media.”
But evolutionary doesn’t attempt to explain the origins on life or matter, only how and why life diversifies. his is a complete misunderstanding on part of lay people like yourself, but it’s not your fault, there is enough misinformation about this theory out there put out directly to muddying the waters or build frivolous strawman talking points. Buy mainstream media, who exactly are you talking about, I mean can you cite an example?
In Stein’s movie he labels evolutionary as ‘explaining life came from a puddle of mud struck by lightning”, but this is wrong. Evolutionary theory says nothing about life origins and it doesn’t hinge off it either. Life could have gotten here many ways and evolutionary theory would still very much hold true.
runningdoc makes a very good point. Different definitions of evolution no matter how slight could bring up an apples and oranges situation. I'll give it some thought. Hope you have a good trip doc.
agentorangex & Mathetes,
let me chime in on the education and being threatened part. As you may remember, I am a lay advocate for children with disabilities helping them get out of the schools what they are suppose to. I have had more than one teacher tell me their job was threatened if they spoke up about a childs needs. Therefore, they would tell me what the child needed. Threats against educators are quite common when it comes to the 'party line'. If you go against what your boss thinks you should be teaching or doing you can, and people have been, fired.
To further support this, I am the son of a career college dean. This was not really an issue at Bible colleges as things were kind of cut and dry but it was common in secular colleges and universities. My dad was a rep to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools so he did have some understanding of this.
My guess, agentorangex, would be that this type of behavior on the part of educational leadership is quite far below your level of professionalism. You strike me as a person who enjoys looking at things from new and different perspectives. You enjoy the scientific process. Still, I run into the same thing concerning special ed. The very idea that a professional would behave in such a way is beyond rational. Yet, it took the federal government investigating our district before the school board took notice and changed some things (like we got a new superintendent, new assistant superintendent, a new special ed leader and a behavioral specialist. One of the board members had told me the district says they are doing nothing wrong. You say we are so go ahead and send off your complaint. The last of three times flying down from Washington to do seminars they did one for the board. The same board member asked at the end of the seminar "So, did we do something wrong or not?" Now, it may just be me but I think lawyers from the US Department of Education have better things to do then to come down here 3 times just for the fun of it.....
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."
This is my point. Although no new evidence is likely to alter it, it does leave that possibility. Producation facilities use something called statistical process control where they test, say, 1 out of every 1000 products manufactured. It was a 'scientific' approach to quality control. The result? A lot of data and still had defective product. This method was identified later as 'defect detection'. A new system promoted by Phillip Crosby was based on defect prevention. He said 93% of all errors that happen in a production environment can be tracked directly back to a upper management issue. When fully implimented it really does work. One of the things he promotes is zd-day (zero defects) where the staff not only has training but has fun too!
Scientific theory is like statistical process control. Although you may call it fact it is still arbitrary in that there may be some data which could come along and change the theory. The term 'absolute' and 'scientific theory' are not the same. When evolutionists, ID or Creationists say they are absolutely right they move beyond science into beliefs.
This is my point. Scientific theory is not unchangeable. Fact is not changeable. To make matters worse, dogmatic people try to use science to 'prove' they are right and by doing so violate the very basis of science.
Calling all of you who are dedicated to the proposition that all men evolved in a more or less unequal manner!
I would like a succinct 150 word definition of evolution as you see it. It seems to me to be a moving target. I know that most of you do not want to explain the origin of life which seems to be the thing that evolution is credited for here in the mainstream media. So, 150 words or less, tell me what this is, if you want to participate. I find that it makes you write better when every word counts. Wont be anyroom for gratuitous insults either!:-) That means you cant call me stupid for asking what is on your minds. :-)
I will be traveling for the next week, but I will look at the posts at least once a day.
runningdoc
Agentorangex,
love your science. While I know you don't agree to me all the wonderous processes of biology you describe only deepen my reverent awe of the universe and my faith based belief in God as the ultimate originator of all these natural wonders which science and scientists help to reveal.
On civil rights issues I am less impressed with some of your statements and presumptions. While not assigning any credit to Stein's propaganda I have personally witnessed discriminatory behavior towards Christians, Muslims, Jews, Agnostics and Atheists in the work place because of their diffeence from those in authority. At first you seem to advise self censorship
“Yet on coffee break or at lunch, he had to keep silent about his beliefs:”
Why should he even feel obligated to reveal such information, again it’s irrelevant. If he doesn’t want to go that route he can politely respond he’s not interested, or simply plead the 5th, it’s a way of moving on.
You then advocate legal action if needed when such conduct has verifiable evidence. Unfortuanately such conduct "going both ways" (for or against religious beliefs) is often subtle and insidious just as racial and gender bias has often been. I believe it is my duty as a citizen to oppose such conduct from those in authority whether they happen to share my belief system or not and I would call on you and everyone to join opposing such discrimination on the basis of personal belief systems. (of course I am not advocating pesonal belief systems as an excuse for doing bad science or education or any other work related performance)
mathetes
“As I understand it, the bacteria becomes resistant when, because of mutation or horizontal gene transfer, it produces proteins to which the antibiotic cannot bind. Thus the bacteria survives the antibiotic. However, the bacteria has not become more complex or increased in genetic information,”
Huh? But that is what new genetic information is. The HGT is the transferring of this new information to otherwise susceptible bacteria in local populations.
Prior to being exposed to a particular antibiotic (brand X) the bacteria would have died, and only those with the preferred mutant ability to survive it live on and reproduce and via HGT (horizontal gene transfer) and replication they swap genes and their respective proteins and therefore you have the new more equipped more evolved populations of bacteria which have passed on this new gene which reduces the binding and as they mix, quite literally via HGT, with other bacteria they are inseminating other typically non evolved genes into the lesser evolved bacteria.
Before they didn’t have it, now they do. New information arrived via HGT and regular replication to code for proteins to ward of bonding of new antibiotics, end of story.
“it has actually lost the ability to produce the normal protein.”
Correct, (well sorta, the expression or activator is switched off, but the old coded protein can still remain, it depends) however it’s more appropriate to say the bacteria ‘swapped’ its original protein (and gene mind you) for the now new preferred one, b/c in this environmen (where brand X antibiotic is) t, this particular protein and respective gene aids in its survival. This swapping is new information; it’s an exchange, out with the old, in with the new.
But then again we've stimulated chickens in labs to express their relic trait of having teeth, and what do you know, they are born with teeth. To a creationist, they would say, 'well the teeth require new information to form!', but in fact the genes for teeth in birds are just tucked away and essentially never expressed. They've always been there, but became relic long long ago.
"Evolution requires a mechanism that increases genetic information and makes the organism more complex, something which does not happen in nature."
I will expand on what CCCCC already put. Gene duplication is the correct answer, but to understand why it requires some understanding in that in an entire genome, most genes are poly genetic and also the same protein coded gene is redundantly repeated, over and over and over, even though this is over kill as the organism only needs a single active gene for developmental expression. So, in development you’ll have many of these duplicate genes, and of them only one will be activated. Now, since duplicate genes exist, an entire change can occur on one of the duplicated genes and it will not affecte the expression of the original active gene and it will also express the now duplicated mutated gene.
Now, you also need to know that ‘HOX gene’s are like the toolkit for basically all organisms, a set of controller genes which affect developmental stages of an organism. Expression in this set of genes determines their controlled parts, like head, thorax, abdomen, wings, legs, etc. When duplications occur in the HOX gene section of the genome, the animal can have new information expressed as the original HOX genes and their original development are unchanged, as the changes are occurring on the duplicated gene, not the normal set. An easy example of new information being added would be the example of nylon digestive bacteria. another would be the stickle back fish.
Mathetes,
“Yet on coffee break or at lunch, he had to keep silent about his beliefs:”
Why should he even feel obligated to reveal such information, again it’s irrelevant. If he doesn’t want to go that route he can politely respond he’s not interested, or simply plead the 5th, it’s a way of moving on.
“but he feared what would happen if his boss found out.”
Well, to be honest I think the discrimination can easily be said to go both ways. I mean could you imagine if other fellow co workers or my boss knew how I viewed certain things and my lack of theology? This could be used against me as well, but it won’t be, or I take them to court, it’s really as simple as that. As long as there is verifiable evidence that shows that is the reason why I am being targeted, hypothetically speaking of course. My point is his or a person’s theology or lack thereof is irrelevant to them doing their job.
Perhaps he wasn’t lying, but then again many well known biologists and geneticists are in fact very outspoken Theists, so I think it could be a little overblown, or simply him miss aligning an actual threat.
“I have known this friend for over six years and always known him to be absolutely honest, even when it costs him”
You’ve known him for six years, so I have ask, what are his views on evolution, after all he’s a biologist. That is of course assuming in your 6 years you’ve talked it over.
“the premise of Ben Stein's movie would be true?;’
I don’t know what you’re talking about pal, if you go to www.expelledexposed.com they show how many of the alleged expulsion cases were people who never worked at a place to begin with, so they never hade tenure in the first place.
mathetes,
thanks for summoning the energy to respond and clarify your friends situation. I have seen people in positions of authority abuse that position based on their personal views. I have seen this against religious groups including Muslims, Christians and Jews, and against those holding political views. As a School official I consider it one of my duties to fight against this whenever I see it and if I am not in a position of authority to combat it then to assist the person in getting help from organizations such as the ACLU. If I found that the ACLU was dicriminating in fact in relation to protecting the civil rights of those seeking help based on the faith of those seeking that assistance then I would assist the person in bringing a law suit against the ACLU for unlawful discrimination (wouldn't that be something). Re the SAT question I appreciate your observation. I will point out that here in Maine the dropout rates are much lower than in the 60's and the college going rates are more than twice the rate as in the 60's. Also comparing apples to apples the SAT scores are just as high or higher and we operate here under the same supreme court rulings as elsewhere. While I may be biased I do believe that parents and pastors in Maine perhaps take their duty to provide moral education more seriously and do not seek to have the schools do that job for them.
Hey, viking, sorry you came in on the end of my energy. Here's my last post:
I believe he either saw the discrimination happen to another person, or it was made clear to him that it would happen. He is extremely rigorous and logical in his method, even in his personal life. I don't think he based his fear on a hunch. Neither do I believe he sought help from the ACLU. This was a few years back, but already the ACLU had a record of speaking up for everyone's freedom of speech, everyone except Christians - we're mainly on the receiving end of their threats and lawsuits.
As for my writing “when the Bible and prayer was expelled from school” - whatever you want to call the Supreme Court decisions in '63 + '64 is fine by me. I thought most people would understand what I meant. I ran across the statistics in a chart one day and was surprised to see how many variables began to change following 1964. I guess it could be just a coincidence, but somehow I don't think so.
Good night, all.
I would prefer a Christian teach a Bible class, someone who would take seriously the whole book. I would not try to teach Islam to anyone - I don't have much experience with it. I'm all for science teachers teaching science classes; I've had some great ones. As for differing from one's parents, it happens. I left my parents' denomination at 17 because I believed another one followed the Bible more closely.
I used Bible class to be more specific than religious ed or a comparative religions class.
I'm headed home. Wow, I don't know how you do it - I was going to guess 3:20 a.m. - didn't realize you're that far east. I hope you have a great day at work. Seriously, thanks for the comments and civil discussion. Perhaps your example will help us all.
Mathetes,
I agree with the proposition that no teacher or student should be humiliated for simply asking a question nor should anyone be censored or fired for showing a class the strengths and weaknesses of a theory. However teachers should not be allowed to present false information regarding science to students such as the concepts of irreducible complexity etc.
In relation to discussing one’s personal beliefs during lunch time etc. this of course should have no bearing on his position or research funding provided they were kept separate from his work. Of course this is true whether he be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Atheist, Agnostic, etc. It is unclear to me from your statements whether he actually experienced funding or employment discrimination or only presumed that he would. Even if it was only a presumption if this was based on observed discrimination of others before him his fears would be justified. If he either experienced such discrimination or had a reasonable fear of such based on observed discrimination against others it is my belief that it would have been the duty of the ACLU to defend his constitutional rights to both free expression and free exercise of religion. Could you please clarify if your friend sought the assistance of the ACLU and was denied or if he failed to do so on a presumption that they would not assist him.
In relation to the drop in the SAT scores correlating to “when the Bible and prayer was expelled from school” this is actually impossible since the Bible and prayer were never expelled from schools. Today as always students have the legal write to pray in school and to carry and read the Bible. What is not permitted is for school officials to force religious practices onto students.
mathetes
Fair point what you write about strengths and weaknesses when I used the term both sides so I retract that term for your one, however is it still okay for the Iman to come into the class? Is it okay for the student to make up their own minds even if they differ from the parents, Is it okay for the student to become a Muslim if thats were they feel the evidence points?
I note with interest you called it "Bible" class, not religious education
Its early here 04.20, time for work.
Steve
Thanks, Steve, every day you help me become a better thinker and writer. <NOT sarcasm>
I was unclear. I meant someone who did not believe in God. Seems it would be awkward at best for someone who claims there is no deity to provide a balanced presentation of Christian beliefs and experiences. I have some Jewish friends who can articulate Christian theology quite well. Given the starting point of our two religions, they might do a passable job. In many comparative religion classes, someone's religion is going to get the short end of the stick.
I don't think that's what I meant by "both sides" - did I say "both sides"? I believe I wrote about strengths and weaknesses. In Bible class the evidence for the historicity of the Bible is discussed, and that outside the Bible itself, we lack evidence of many specific stories. Would it not be good to be as honest about science class? Here's the evidence for Darwinism, here's the places where evidence is weak or lacking. All taught by a science teacher, not a preacher. I disagree that the LA law is trying to slip religion into the science class.
I hope I didn't just confuse things worse. Perhaps it's just the lateness of the hour.
mathetes: This bill is completely worthless. The "weaknesses" of evolution are entirely too complex for all but the most educated biologist. High schoolers and below couldn't begin to grasp the questions that scientists actually tackle regarding evolution so the entire bill is either a big waste of time or a back-door attempt to slip religion in science and quite frankly I don't want biology teachers teaching religion anymore than I want my Sunday school teacher, teaching biology.
mathetes
When you wrote that you would not personally want an unbeliever teacihing any apsect of religion in class, do you mean an unbeliever in God or Christanity (the two are not the same) would a druid be okay, they are believers? You have not defined what you mean by believer.
Following that one up, if in science classes "both sides" should be taught (as if there are only ever just two sides). Should both sides be taught in religious class, forgetting the existence or not of God, should an Iman be allowed to come into school so children can make up ther own minds about whether Islam is true and Christainity not etc..? Its just seems like a logical extention of the boths sides arguement, surley that must be right also, let the students make up their own minds?
Regards
Steve
Hi Believer re post of June 18 10:52. Without addressing the central issue I have to point out that your argument equating defenders of evolution with on demand abortions would be the same as equating defenders of Intelligent Design with bombers of abortion clinics. Neither argument has any validity. Also it was scientists who rejected the Piltdown hoax almost immediately and the lay public who accepted it. “From the outset, there were scientists who expressed skepticism about the Piltdown find. G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together." In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.” Ironically to your argument it was establishment scientists studying human evolution who rejected and exposed the hoax.
Wasteing valuble teaching time......
If evolution is so overwhelmingly established and irrefutably, then it can withstand any attacks and scrutiny. What are evolutionist afraid of?
Liars
Backward creationist hicks
gullible uneducated protestant extremists.
I don't know, but it seems several folks, even steve and agentorangex, have warned you. If you cannot follow the rules of the forum, don't blame anyone else but yourself for being flagged. If Hyperion Overseer reads your slander, your comments will all disappear.
"Evolution requires a mechanism that increases genetic information and makes the organism more complex, something which does not happen in nature."
This is another of many creationist lies. Look up "gene duplication".
Look it. From DNA analysis biologists can determine evolutionary relationships with 100% accuracy. There's no point in denying what biologists can see with their own eyes. If you have a problem with that, then complain to the entire scientific community, not me.
"As I understand the LA bill, it will not introduce religion into the classroom."
I noticed that creationists are 100% for this bill, and scientists and science teachers are 100% against this bill.
What's the reason for these facts?
"it will not introduce religion into the classroom" is lying.
Another problem is the weaknesses of evolution are imaginary. It's like saying our planet's orbit around the sun has weaknesses. This bill is an excuse for incompetent biology teachers to lie about science.
You don't have to believe me. Ask any competent scientist.
There will be a trial. Like in the Dover trial, religious scientists like Ken Miller will testify against this anti-science creationism bill. Like in the Dover trial, the creationists will lose again, wasting more than one million dollars of taxpayer money.
Since the statement in my previous comment was published by the New Orleans Geological Society in 1981, the evidence for evolution is thousands of times greater, and the newer evidence from molecular biology is as powerful as evidence can possibly be.
Every year, as the huge mountain of evidence for evolution grows larger and stronger, the creationists continue to attack and lie about this evidence they don't understand. The 21st century creationists, who prefer to live permanently in the Dark Ages, are causing great harm to their religion. Any intelligent child who loves science is going to look at the backward creationist hicks, and realize that Christianity is an obsolete idea for uneducated fools. The creationists cause more damage to their religion than any atheist ever could.
cccccccccc,
As I understand the LA bill, it will not introduce religion into the classroom. (I personally don't want a teacher who happens to be an unbeliever teaching any aspect of religion to any students.) The wording of the bill seems to put the emphasis on teaching strengths and weaknesses, teaching critical thinking skills, and protecting those with differing opinions from harm. It does not insert religion into the science class room.
As for their example of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, that's not such a good example of evolution. As I understand it, the bacteria becomes resistant when, because of mutation or horizontal gene transfer, it produces proteins to which the antibiotic cannot bind. Thus the bacteria survives the antibiotic. However, the bacteria has not become more complex or increased in genetic information, it has actually lost the ability to produce the normal protein. Evolution requires a mechanism that increases genetic information and makes the organism more complex, something which does not happen in nature.
Louisiana, which is perhaps the most backward anti-science state of America, has a long history of religious attacks against science education. In this statement from the NEW ORLEANS GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, published in 1981, Louisiana geologists complain about an anti-science education bill that was passed by the Louisiana legislature 27 years ago. I'm pretty sure this was the bill that was thrown out by the Supreme Court in 1987. The Louisiana creationist traitors didn't learn their lesson, and they are still ignoring the Establishment Clause today.
Here's the 1981 statement from the New Orleans Geological Society. It's as accurate today as it was almost 3 decades ago. Just substitute the words "creation science" with "intelligent design". They both mean the same, and they are both non-scientific magical creation myths, believed only by gullible uneducated protestant extremists.
http://tinyurl.com/6bg9s6
PART 2 OF 2
The process underpinning evolution - natural selection - has been widely and thoroughly documented. As in all areas of active research, scientists continue to debate the details. Yet these disagreements should not be misconstrued, as they have been by creationists, as evidence of fundamental problems with the theory. There is consensus within the scientific community about the overall validity of Darwin's theory. In fact, evolution is still evident today; with bacterial resistance to antibiotics and potential mutations in influenza that could impact avian flu transmission as examples that profoundly affect world health. Evolution is an essential component of modern science education. K-12 science education based on anything other than tested and accepted scientific theory is detrimental to the education of America's youth.
Creationists often argue that religious and scientific worldviews are incompatible, asserting that it is impossible to be both actively religious and accept the theory of evolution. However, many people, including prominent scientists, embrace both evolution and a belief in God. SfN strongly disputes the claims made by advocates of intelligent design that subscribing to a scientific view of the world is incompatible with religious experience.
The Society for Neuroscience supports the teaching of evolution, and opposes the teaching of intelligent design in science classrooms. Education about evolution is essential to our future competitiveness as a nation, so it is imperative that an understanding of this fundamental scientific theory be shared with the school children of America. The mixing of faith or religious belief with the scientific method is not a sound lesson for our children's education.
PART 1 OF 2
Hundreds of scientific organizations have published statements supporting the proven scientific facts of biological evolution. This statement was published today.
Thursday, 19 June 2008
Society for Neuroscience statement on Evoltuion and Intelligent Design
Recognizing that the principles of evolution are fundamental to understanding and studying the origins and diversity of living things, the Society for Neuroscience opposes the assertion that teaching intelligent design theory is a valid scientific alternative to teaching evolution in science classrooms.
The theory of evolution is accepted with remarkable consensus throughout the scientific community. The evidence in its support has accumulated over the past 160 years-from fields as disparate as paleontology and genomics-and is overwhelming. Scientific advances in the field of evolution, as in every other field of science, are obtained on the basis of respectful debate, the continuous search for truth, and meticulous investigation to accept or reject ideas supported by evidence. In this regard, education on evolution and on science in general provides tools for a better understanding of ourselves and the world and also provides individuals with a language for universal understanding, mutual respect, and tolerance.
Intelligent design is the most recent attempt by creationists to undermine the theory of evolution in the science classroom. Thwarted by past legal decisions upholding the separation of church and state, proponents of intelligent design have resorted to masking their religious beliefs with the pseudo-scientific language of this theory. By invoking "intelligent forces" to account for biological diversity, however, intelligent design presents a theory that is as supernatural and unscientific as the traditional creationist one. In fact, intelligent design theory runs counter to the established principles of science in that it is not based on evidence or testable through the scientific method. Intelligent design is not science, and has no place in the science classroom.
AO,
M: 'My co-worker said at Vandy, he had to remain silent on his beliefs or he would lose any funding for future research. '
AO: "what exactly does ones theology have to do with scienec evidences anyway? "
My question exactly. He is a highly qualified, published biologist, as rational as the next scientist. Yet on coffee break or at lunch, he had to keep silent about his beliefs or face consequences as described below. His personal beliefs should not have been a concern to his boss, but he feared what would happen if his boss found out.
M: "Why didn't the ACLU come to his rescue and protect his rights?"
AO: "Maybe b/c what your friend is telling you is bogus and therefore their was no lawsuit to begin with? "
I have listened to you, even complimented you, though all I know about you is words on the screen. For me to say you are a lying about something you've related about your past would not be honorable. I have known this friend for over six years and always known him to be absolutely honest, even when it costs him.
Are you sure you simply don't want to believe his story might be true, because that would mean scientists sometimes act in less than honorable or irrational ways, and that the premise of Ben Stein's movie would be true?
", or if you were censored or fired for showing your class the strengths and weaknesses of a theory, "
quite muddying the waters, this isn't simply just advocating the stregths and weakness of all science theories, the only one targeted is evolution and its obvious due to how theologically hard it is to digrest.
'My co-worker said at Vandy, he had to remain silent on his beliefs or he would lose any funding for future research. '
what exactly does ones theology have to do with scienec evidences anyway?
"Why didn't the ACLU come to his rescue and protect his rights?"
Maybe b/c what your friend is telling you is bogus and therefore their was no lawsuit to begin with?
“Would we conclude there's no intelligence there?”
No, not necessarily. We would conclude there is no active ongoing intelligence involved though. We could try to deduce if some intelligence built the machines to be totally automated or if such machines could produce higher orders of complexity, essentially building themselves. The processes of a hypothetical car factory with no workers would be devoid of future intelligence at all though, so the machines could only do this production process, they couldn’t self modify as evolution allows species to diversify and become more complex.
Should machines become capable enough to make such human based decisions, or even close to it, than from our own basis on understanding of how to quantify intelligence it would no doubt be defined as intelligent.
However, machines and non-living systems do not have the same properties of living biological systems. Cars can’t self-reproduce, nor is there a way cars can have such replication errors (mutations), which result in internal variety. Therefore cars can’t on their own adapt and evolve. New models require new modification, personified by an agent – us. In evolution there is no personified agent, the biological system changes on its own dynamically according to survivability based around differential reproduction.
Simply put, cars and other non –living systems can’t on their own undergo the same processes involved with natural selection, therefore they can’t undergo evolution either. Sure they are complex in they’re own right, but comparing living and non-living systems for the purposes of evolution isn’t the best analogy. It is essentially comparing apples and oranges again.
“Aren't you all so nice! Gravity is not a theory now is it? Gravity is a proven fact. Evolution is a theory now isn't it? Evolution is not a proven fact or ALL THE TEXTBOOKS ARE WRONG! Take your pick.”
No, this isn’t correct. Gravity the process IS a FACT; the processes like how mass operates according to velocity IS a FACT of gravitational theory. Gravitational THEORY explains the FACTS related to gravitation, what causes it, what limitations there are and so on. Evolution the process IS a FACT, like the processes like how biological organisms vary genetically from population to population. This would be a FACT of evolutionary THEORY. Like Gravitational theory, evolutionary theory explains the facts and evidence related to its own model/theory.
Understand the difference now? This is why, although I don’t agree with CCCCCC negative name-calling, his comment below is spot on.
A theory in science isn’t a hunch, it’s an explanatory model used to make falsifiable predictions, which either further affirm the model/theory or rebuke it.
The textbooks aren’t wrong DP, you are. You don’t even understand what ‘theory’ means as it relates to science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
blue1018,
If you were in a class where the teacher humiliated a student for simply asking a question, or if you were censored or fired for showing your class the strengths and weaknesses of a theory, you might have a better appreciation for this bill. My co-worker said at Vandy, he had to remain silent on his beliefs or he would lose any funding for future research. Why didn't the ACLU come to his rescue and protect his rights?
I guess till you've experienced it, you cannot understand it. Hopefully this bill will help improve schools by giving students all the facts and teaching them think critically for themselves.
By the way, our students did not just become poor, uneducated, or unmotivated overnight. If you look at the trends in LA and nationally, SAT scores began dropping and teenage pregnancy + dropout rates began climbing starting in 1963-64. What happened to cause these things? Those were the years when the Bible and prayer was expelled from school.
Thanks Steve! I have had a saying for quite some time.....
The more I learn the more I realize the less I actually know!
In short, the more I learn the more ignorant I find we all actually are.... :-) Perhaps I'm a bit brighter in a different quantum reality????
Hello DP
No, it is quite in order to use the phrase "theory of gravity", Newton had his theory of gravity, Einstein had his theory of gravity so though not used daily it is not wrong. In many senses "gravity" is not a fact, what we call gravity is no more than a set of explantions for certain events we observe in the world about us.
It is quite interesting to note that the next step in mans understanding of gravity will most likely be to come up with a "theory"of quantum gravity which will renconcile quantum mechanics and relativity. Hold on to your hats, our understanding of gravity will change, now thats a fact!!.
Kind regards
Steve
agentorangex "I appologize for cccccccc, I don't know why he must insist on calling something you hold sacred by such names, I refuse to stoop to such levels, so please don't think badly of me by association for prefering science over theology."
Thanks! There are those who defend Creationism simply because it would undermine their entire belief system if they did not. They don't discuss the gibber. The same is true in any camp including evolution. Those who are closed minded simply insult and gibber. They don't discuss openly and respectfully because it would be admiting to themselves they don't know for sure because there are simply not enough proven facts to do more than make assumptions based on what we do know. It is the belief they have to defend what they believe as if it cannot stand on its own. It is not a defense in the camp of apologetics but rather an emotional defense.
I was taught science doesn't assume. It simply observes, tests and measures. Scientific conclusions are nothing more than determining what lies on the other side of the = sign in a math equation. This is the problem on both sides of the issue. Man wants to use science to prove what they believe. True science doesn't do that.
Both ID and evolution take leaps of faith and admit to it. Yet there are those who argue for evolution who cannot admit to this simply because it leaves open the possibility there may actually be a God they are going to answer to. Again, not science but religion using science to defend a belief (in this case agaist) concerning the existance of God.
Everyone is free to choose what they believe but let's not blame science for what we cannot prove. The 'proof' that is out there still has not changed our textbooks.
Aren't you all so nice! Gravity is not a theory now is it? Gravity is a proven fact. Evolution is a theory now isn't it? Evolution is not a proven fact or ALL THE TEXTBOOKS ARE WRONG! Take your pick.
Dear CP readers.
Some may have noticed that a large number of comments have disappeared from a number of articles. We would like everyone to know that we are currently in the process of launching our new site within this week and experienced a minor glitch. We apologize for the inconvenience and hope to be able to restore the comments to the site.
Thank You
CP Admin
agentorange/all:
<<No, only that in the process of evolution there is no inferred 'hand of god' directing the evolution, the process is natural, just like gravity, just like atoms, just like electricity and magnetism. Natural explanations for natural things, there is no need, unless you’re looking for theological ones, to * insert god here* into the equation of evolution.>>
Suppose we walk into a completely automated factory making cars... All robots from start to finish down the assembly line with no humans being seen at all. Would we conclude there's no intelligence there? No, the intelligence is just one-step removed, but still very evident.
Further, we maintain that God is not only the originating cause of all things, but also the *sustaining* cause of all things based on the fact of contingency/dependency. The reasoning is as follows:
- Everything in the universe is dependent (contingent)
- If every part of the universe is dependent, then so is the whole
- Therefore, the universe is dependent right now on some independent / Necessary Being for its present existence
This is a 'vertical' cosmological argument for God. Not surprisingly, we find this called out in Scripture as well:
"He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17
"And He ... upholds all things by the word of His power..." Hebrews 1:2-3
The Bottom Line,
Any theory or religion should be open to "critical analysis", no truth can be found if you're not given a chance to explore it on your own without undue influence/interference from outside sources-no matter what there bias is. To be afraid of alternative ideas is to be insecure in your belief's and/ or doubtful of the facts. The Gospel of CHRIST welcomes all observations and analysis, but be not mistaken-it is faith given from GOD which leads you to HIM-something that can't be measured. It is my heartfelt wish that all people would explore and sincerely analysis the Word of GOD and take the time to study the Bible, I think you will see the truth in HIS word if you can swallow your pride and surrender your heart to JESUS who died for all of us-no matter what we believe, I pray you will find some wisdom in what I have said and challenge yourself to honestly explore all of HIS word. IN JESUS NAME
LA now has some of the most poverty-stricken, uneducated, and highest drop out rates anywhere in the country.. let me TELL you how this is going to help THAT! Colleges will look away faster than they'll care. LA should be IMPROVING schools rather than wasting time and effort on unnecessary bills like this.. what a shame to researchers statewide.
I would like to add my support to agents sentiments.
Steve
DP,
I appologize for cccccccc, I don't know why he must insist on calling something you hold sacred by such names, I refuse to stoop to such levels, so please don't think badly of me by association for prefering science over theology.
Must you insult him cccccc? What does this accomplish but alienation and utter contempt for all future things you say? I'm not asking much, just try not to insult them, be civil. Bury them with evidence, not insults.
This
"Evolution believes in no Creator and therefore views all science as pointing to that."
is as dumb as this
"Gravity believes in no Creator and therefore views all science as pointing to that."
Daniel Paul, you don't even know what science is, but that doesn't stop you from making a fool out of yourself.
All branches of science, including biological evolution, say nothing about your Christian Sky Fairy. Science could care less if there's a Mr. God or not. There is a complete separation of proven scientific facts like evolution and childish idiotic religions like Christianity. Please respect that separation and keep your insane religion out of science education.
Daniel,
We can test these 2 topics in labs, over and over and over. In fact they are doing this now at Indiana University and other colleges, but not yet in grade schools. Perhaps they think it's too advanced for them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
Indian.edu site for inclass material and instructions on it. So easy a caveman could follow it.
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.fus.les.html
"I have always believed that "origin" has no place in a science class because each cannot be proven let alone proven over and over. "
But evolutionary theory has nothing to do with 'origins'. It doesn't describe how the universe originated, nor does it attempt to describe the origins on life, all it attempts to explain is the diversity of life." How, why and what causes life to diversify" That is all evolutionary theory can really tell us. What causes it, what propels it, what limitations are there, and how can we understand such processes using the scientific method for the betterment of humanity. That's the goal of science. To ignore it, or pretend it doesn't exist, even b/c its theologically comforting to some is wrong. It doesn't negate god or the need for god at all, it, like the other science theories just says that regarding the natural occruances of such things, no god is needed to make them work as they now are. When Newton first posited that this force, gravity, was what as controlling planetary motions - and not the direct hand of god - people then too didn't like the idea as it pushed god back into a smaller hole with less to actively do.
" Evolution believes in no Creator and therefore views all science as pointing to that."
No, only that in the process of evolution there is no inferred 'hand of god' directing the evolution, the process is natural, just like gravity, just like atoms, just like electricity and magnetism. Natural explanations for natural things, there is no need, unless you’re looking for theological ones, to * insert god here* into the equation of evolution.
Some like ifeelfine72 has a belief in god and evolution, known as theistic evolution, whereby they hold that evolution is indeed a natural process, but at a particular point in the past or many times god intervened to ensure we would come to be.
One could say god directed evolution, but not directly, but indirectly by supplying the natural laws, fundamental principles by which matter works. In this way, god is very much involved, it is, essentially indirectly guided, but from a high level direction, not from the string puller most make him out to be.
True science is that which is repeatable in the lab. It is something that students can prove over and over. Our science classes waste so much time with Darwinism and Creationism that they are behind much of the planet when it comes to science.
I have always believed that "origin" has no place in a science class because each cannot be proven let alone proven over and over. Both are the foundations of ways of thinking. Creation believes in a Creator and views all science as pointing to that. Evolution believes in no Creator and therefore views all science as pointing to that. Neither is science.
Daniel Paul
“Since the evolutionists don't want critical thinking being applied they must know evolution will not stand up to critical thinking...thus it is a weak arguement at best.”
It comes down to teaching in science what is best supported. We wouldn’t want to confuse the kids with actual science and pseudo-science now would we? You wouldn’t honestly advocate the teaching of astrology alongside astronomy or alchemy alongside chemistry would you? Nor would anyone advocate teaching both that the North won and lost in the Civil War. Well, I guess people from the South wouldn’t so much mind, as after all it favors them, right? We have the evidence for such events, we know what transpired, and teaching the kids as if the South won the war is wrong.
Any and all ideas that want to be taught as science must go through the normal channels of having been shown to have demonstrable evidence and making falsifiable predictions based on results. We can’t simply just inject something into the classes simply to ‘teach both sides’. Why is ID exempt from having to go all the other routes all other science theories have undergone in cutting their teeth in labs and in science journals?
“True science doesn't prove either position.”
‘True Science’, what’s that? I am assuming by 'true science' you mean anything which doesn't infringe on the biblical 6 day creationism?
Science only supports one point of facts, it doesn’t, for instance support BOTH alchemy and chemistry, it only supports one and only one based on objective tests and evidence, and evolutionary theory is no different. You’re attempting to diffuse the issue as if; science can’t possibly definitively define which is correct and which is bunk. This is wrong, science simply stands on evidence and testing and the results speak for themselves. Essentially, the model which explains the most facts and evidence wins out and in astrology it just isn’t consistent, same for alchemy, same for biblical 6 day creationism.
"If I'm not mistaken, isn't it the evolutionists who complain that those who hold to creation refuse an analytical view of Creation because the Church says you should just accept it? "
I'd like to confirm dp that yes you are mistaken "the church" what ever that may mean does not say you should accept creation i.e no evolution etc...It would be more honest to say that certain streams of Christanity say you should accept creation i.e no evolution and then balance that with the statement that some streams of Christainity have no problem with it. and still accept creation. Integrity, its so hard to come by these days....
Kind regards
Steve
I think you are missing the point here! Critiacal thinking being applied to truth is not a problem. Since the evolutionists don't want critical thinking being applied they must know evolution will not stand up to critical thinking...thus it is a weak arguement at best.
True science doesn't prove either position. Many times I see both sides of the issue arguing the same thing. The bottom line is it takes quite a level of faith to believe either side and science is stuck in the middle. Science is simply the study of that which exists. Evolution and Creation are both non-scientific conclusions which attempt to use science to 'prove' its point.
Let the kids learn how to THINK! It would be a nice change. :-)
"Still, read Icons. Darwin can be questioned"
I've read 'Icons', it's not THAT bad, don't get me wrong, but it's not the hallmark you attmept to make it out to be. It gets so many things wrong, biologically speaking, that for a laymen it does a diservice. Everything is quesionable and up for debate in science, we just need the evidence and testing to demonstrate why and where a view is wrong. Not all of Darwins ideas on evolution were correct, but this isn't all his fault, some of this is because such methods like genetics didn't exist. His overall model of biological evolution though is still true as its the one best supported by tests and evidence.
Agento
Thank you for the corrections. Still, read Icons. Darwin can be questioned. If not, science methodology is questionable.
"isn't it the evolutionists who complain that those who hold to creation refuse an analytical view of Creation because the Church says you should just accept it?"
There is holding to creation as its tested and demonstrated to be, by knolwedge revealed through science. As in how we know astrology is bunk, as is alchemy and loads of other bad or unscientically ground ideas, like ID.
And then there is the 'revealed creation' which, mind you, is mixed with a level of 'faith' for good measure to make it believable. 'What you say, the earth isn't 6,000 years old....well my faith tells me it is!' It's really quite that simple for them. Faith overides and suspends logic and raionale based on facts, othwise why call it faith right? The Creo's are essentially holding the book above the creation, its basically a form of idolatry.
'What you say, we ARE biologically related to other life on this planet? No, no, no says the Creo's, we aren't, it says so in the book.'. Nevertheless we are animlas, and more specifcally we are members of the primates, which a specific group of mammalian animals. And no, the defining of humans as primates was before Darwin, it was done in facy by a creationist in an attempt to catalog and order animals based on traits.
'what you say, the earth wasn't formed before the Sun, or before the rest of the universe nor is it the center of it?'
If I'm not mistaken, isn't it the evolutionists who complain that those who hold to creation refuse an analytical view of Creation because the Church says you should just accept it?
Will somone please explain to me how the evolutionists position on this is different? It sounds rather "don't do as I do but do as I say do" doesn't it?
"Readers of this post should take time to read J. West's Icon of Evolution."
It's Jonathan Wells, not West. and it's 'Icons of Evolution', not icon. Alos, the book is riddled with technical and biological errors.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icons_of_Evolution
"West demonstrates thorough research, is well documented, and never refers to God, Christ, the Lord, or any deity-term. "
Well I should hope not, it purports to be a science book, so it should contain ya know, sciency stuff, not theology.
I find it interesting that according to some in the evol;ution camp youth are not capable of telling the difference between truth and fiction when it comes to the teaching of evolution versus the teaching of intelligent design, but yet youth are capable of deciding to have an abortion without parental consent and are free to obtain birth control products without a parents consent. And abb3w you mentioned several so-called arguments that creationists use to support their view that you say have been proven to be bogus, but let us not forget the infamous piltdown man hoax that was used to support the evolution view for a number of years .
Readers of this post should take time to read J. West's Icon of Evolution. The premise of the book is that biologists have become uncritical of Darwinian evolutionists, mainly through bullying tactics of a dogmatic set of scientists that will not allow dissent. West is not a creationist, though that tends to be a knee-jerk label used by overly zealous pro-Darwinians. In fact, in writing Icons of Evolution, West demonstrates thorough research, is well documented, and never refers to God, Christ, the Lord, or any deity-term. It is pure science declaring that good science runs with the evidence, and doesn't depend on evolutionary thinking, materialistic philosophical presuppositions, or nihil obsits from the established scientific community.
One striking story the book mentions is about a visiting Chinese scientist that showed reluctance to accept Darwinian evolution as fact. When asked about his position he mentioned in China you can question Darwin, but not the government. In America, we can question the government, but never try to question Darwin.
True science is following the evidence, even if it damages pet theories. We only can hope for honest scientists.
The so-called "evolution evidence" is actually all either formally fallacious, or demonstrably less probable interpretations of that evidence, yet the evolutionists fail to acknowledge this. Their attempts to stifle any reasoned objection to their hypotheses is evidence of this.
dstark10 and Maxout: The problem is at that at whatever age, there is major risk nonsense of being accepted when presented by an authority figure; look up the Milgram electroshock experiment.
While presenting junk alongside science can be overcome, it is a waste of time and effort to do so. The so-called "contrary evidence" is actually all either formally fallacious, or demonstrably less probable interpretations of that evidence; however, the "cdesign proponents" refuse to admit this, and furthermore keep bringing up the same old discredited chestnuts (the eye, the flagellum, the Paluxy River tracks, etc.) as if the claims had not repeatedly been shown bogus.
Furthermore, just as it is a violation of the disestablishmentarian First Amendment to promote any one religion such as by teaching Creationism, it is arguably also a violation to specifically attack such a religious proposition as Intelligent Design. By eroding this demarcation, the "cdesign proponentsists" open the ground to specific discussion of why particular Religious views are Bullpucky Not Science. Since impressionable youth may then be prone to discard all the valid moral teachings of their upbringing via Religion along with Religion's Counterfactual Natural History, I would consider this a REALLY bad idea.
Flagged myself
These "cdesign proponentsists" are seeking to deliberately harm Louisiana's children, by stunting their intellectual growth.
This is sinful.
Why is the scientific establishment so afraid of young people being exposed to what they deem to be "nonsense" and/or "junk science"? If this is so, wouldn't it become self-evident? Wouldn't the best way to eradicate this so-called religious propaganda be to have it brought to light under rigorous scientific scrutiny?
Clearly this is not about the search for truth and objective critical thinking and more geared toward thought control, censorship and fear. Kids are unknowingly being indoctrinated with half-truths and encouraged to simply regurgitate an largely archaic dogma. Shame on those who deny reality and oppose free thought and critical thinking for the sake of their own pride and fear..
When I read about academic freedom acts, I am reminded of the words of our Lord when he spoke about those who corrupt children and mill stones, he was spot on.
Steve
ccccccc,
Your statement is a massive blanket generalization. Sentences such as "every single one of them is an uneducated anti-science hick." and "The rest of the world is laughing at the voters who voted for these morons", are overgeneralized undocumented claims. So is it possible you are suffering from the very problems you claim these people have?
If any so called "theory" has holes in it, intellectual honest would dictate that these be brought up. Censorship of contrary evidence and ideas in the realm of science, is evidence that what is being defended not true scientific inquiry but a faith system which can not stand up to close examination.
36 to zero.
The Louisiana state senate contains the most backward politicians in America. Every single one of them is an uneducated anti-science hick. The rest of the world is laughing at the voters who voted for these morons.