Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Not to mention the example of the snake; you mean to tell me that an animal was designed to slither like a snake, but it's skeleton has tiny nonfunctional thigh and femur bones? That is Evolution at work.

C'mon now!

Moses had that one covered by chapter 3!

Genesis 3:14-15 14 So the Lord God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life.

So it's settled then

After reading so many posts it seems to me that there is misunderstanding on the approach to the problem.

1) Science class teaches the origins of life and therefore it should include the possibility of evolution, intelligent design (including pink unicorns), a completely random fluctuation, or life being actually not existing at all but rather an illusion in a matrix.

2) Science class teaches the scientific method and presents how it applies to various fields - physics, chemistry, biology, computers, etc. The Evolution is an example of what the scientific method makes out of the... well the 'time evolution' of various species. As part of this process there is the origin of life, which having not very many data is clearly not answered to the same detail as say chemical reactions, nevertheless there is some sort of scientific theory that is not all that developed, but still worth mentioning. No need to mention any other unscientific possibilities since there is no clear cut at what point of confidence in theory you have to do this consistently.

Interesting post from Lee about the possibility of God being taught always and everywhere - apparently it is done in the school he went to - is that not a regular school? Lee, your clause 'if correct' seems to automatically disqualify it.

And I'd address one more point

Originally Posted by JohnP

Simply because another hypothesis that allows for a previously existing intelligence to have created life as we know it-by definition does not make that hypothesis "unscientific". Alternative explanations have no more evidence, and should not be considered "more scientific".

The distinction is whether it allows for the scientific approach to develop said hypothesis into a theory. In the case of evolution it is an extrapolation of a scientific theory, as rudimentary as it is you can still make predictions and observations (perhaps create life in a lab starting with carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc in their inorganic form), while with ID you basically have to just wait for the designer to somehow reveal themselves. Of course if there are some leftover artifacts from that previously existing intelligence and they are conductive to scientific exploration, by all means the ID should go to the science class.

Originally Posted by jockeyes

what's important is that science (which, correctly, presents evolution as a THEORY) should remain science, just as philosophy class shouldn't get sidetracked by discussions about differential equations.

One wonders then how come scientists and mathematicians nowadays become Doctors of Philosophy.

Russel...
just to question your assumptions...please post some links to studies in which life forms have adapted...from nonliving material....assuming there is a preponderance of this evidence as you claim...to life, then into a different species? From start to finish, as you previously asserted. I have allowed for the possibility of some of your arguments, but your posts make quite a few claims, which honestly I would like to see proof for. SO far as I know, there is none. Just educated speculation for the most part.

Natural selection? possibly-but I would like to see an organism that has been (from start to finish) observed bettering itself and its genetic code, to adapt to a changing environment. Degenerative mutation leading to extinction does not count.
Incidentally, skeletons have been found dated *older* than "Lucy" which have much higher statures and much more recognizable human features...Lucy is only about 10,000 years old. Much more "human" looking remains have been found dating almost 200,000 years old. Not to mention...the tooth-jawbone ratio comparisons claimed earlier for reconstruction of the skulls...is not possible without the bone the teeth would have fit into. Minor detail...also "Lucy" was not in one place, but scattered. All the same skeleton? maybe, maybe not. Attempting to manipulate evidence to support one view or another may or may not lead to the truth. Only what the person interpreting the find believes it means, based on personal bias, opinion, etc.
Secondly, an idea that has been arrived at does not become "scientific" because it was arrived at by "scientists". Science is science. The scientific method is to paraphrase, the collection of data and empirical evidence to test hypotheses. No data or empirical evidence exists to support evolution (in the form you seem to ascribe to) as the explanation for life's beginnings.

So then...these theories are "unscientific" as well, and should not be called such. Just because a physicist believes Ron Paul would be a good President doesn't mean it has a basis in science, right?
Why is there the desire to use an unrelated theory (evolution) to explain why creation should be rejected from schools? You have proven none of your arguments, other than by claiming they are "accepted" by people you respect...nor have you demonstrated that any of these disprove creation itself. My own arguments have simply sought to have people consider things with a more open mind. If you can believe an elaborate story explaining how you think things adapt to their environment (as, if you believe pure natural selection, there is no natural selection involved, only extinctions of species incompatible with their environments), then why is a much simpler explanation less likely because it allows for an initiator to the entire process...or indeed, "less scientific"? A theory is a theory, a hypothesis is a hypothesis, and all are within the realm of science.
Oh sure, you can poo-poo my beliefs and bandy about the word "scientific" but the process of excluding as impossible a hypothesis that provides a straight forward, simple explanation, because it differs from your atheistic version of things, your religious beliefs...is just as unscientific and just as "religious" as you claim my premises to be. Years ago ideas were similarly excluded because they didn't support the *older* religions of science, Catholicism, and Islam. The new favored religion of many scientists, Atheism, is still a religion, and it should not be used as a filter to which hypothesis should or should not be considered.

Can't have it both ways. Either science considers hypotheses...or it supports the atheistic religious beliefs of some of its practitioners and attempts to form the evidence to support this...which...kind of ceases to be science, and delves more into religion itself...

Russel, I think we've both made what points we want to make. If your belief ascribes to an atheistic point of view, that is fine. Only such does not make it the "scientific" point of view. Only the Atheist one. Science has no point of view, only the search for the truth. Unbiased practice of science itself would consider the possibilities of either, without making assumptions that there is no creator(s)...which is ultimately, a religious choice.

Science itself does not support the atheistic version of the origin of life any more than the other versions. Honestly is there even a true scientific theory supporting your chosen belief in the origins of life? I don't think so.

Evolution itself...is a theory...because there are at least some things one could study to attempt to ascertain the truth or no of the theory wrt whether species adapt or are . However, as an explanation for origins of life...is still only in the hypothesis stage and bears no more weight than any other idea.
Attributing life to intentional action is no less supported by evidence.
Until we *know* teaching one over the other is not education but indoctrination, IMHO.
Irrespective of a living things' bone structure, or whether one believes it has changed or not...evolutionary theory does not explain the origins of life any more scientifically than even the strangest sounding religion.
Creationism, doesn't even seek to do that, doesn't seek to say whether or not creatures adapt...it is not a related theory. It simply says rather than "simply occurring by coincidence" life was created by the intent of a sentient being. Therefore, where is the problem? Don't believe in sentient beings?

John P.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

For those that have said Evolution is undocumented, or unproven (as much of an oxymoron as that is when talking about scientific theories), I would like to ask that we take a break from that point to do some hard and fast research because it's just not true.

Here's a quick page on speciation (the technical term for a species that has broken off from it's most recent ancestor in some genetic characteristic): Observed Instances of Speciation go down to point 5 for some examples. I'm sure it's not the best source on the net, but it's what a quick google search picked up.

and another quick one: Ecology

one more: What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?

Not to mention the example of the snake; you mean to tell me that an animal was designed to slither like a snake, but it's skeleton has tiny nonfunctional thigh and femur bones? That is Evolution at work.

I couldn't wade through that first link. I don't speak botanese. No commment.

That second link shows a variation within a species itself.

The tiktaalik is quite interesting, but contains no evidence that anything actually evolved from it, or that it was descended from something preceeding it. It is speculated that at some later point you add a couple of legs on there, etc, etc....but again that is speculation on the part of the researcher.



I say that if at some point somewhere they decide to adopt a dual curriculum, they should include this thread as part of the textbook!

Furthermore: the hypothesis about invisible pink unicorns is patently false, as being invisible, they cannot also have a color ascribed to them, and thus are eliminated in a puff of optical scientific law.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Moses had that one covered by chapter 3!

Genesis 3:14-15 14 So the Lord God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life.

The snake is cattle which has scales? I thought it was permissible to eat cattle and fish with scales, but not snakes. Actually thinking about it seems edibility is based on whether it has scales in the water or what kind of hoofs it has in the land. Still I dig on swine.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Natural selection? possibly-but I would like to see an organism that has been (from start to finish) observed bettering itself and its genetic code, to adapt to a changing environment. Degenerative mutation leading to extinction does not count.

Not sure what is from start to finish, but the first thing I can think of is (the rather serious problem of) microorganisms developing resistance to antibiotics.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Russel...
just to question your assumptions...please post some links to studies in which life forms have adapted...from nonliving material....assuming there is a preponderance of this evidence as you claim...to life, then into a different species? From start to finish, as you previously asserted. I have allowed for the possibility of some of your arguments, but your posts make quite a few claims, which honestly I would like to see proof for. SO far as I know, there is none.

John P.

If you will refer to post #40, I said that evolution has been observed from start to finish on existing living entities. You misunderstood that to mean that nonliving matter has been witnessed transforming into living matter, which I have never said.

Even though I did post a link in post #128 about the Miller-Urey experiment that showed inorganic matter reconstituting itself into organic matter.

The funny thing about this is that you are making claims that Evolution is weakly developed and unevaluated, but I'm the one posting links. I'd appreciate your help in sorting through the information on the topic, there's quite a bit out there. I mean that seriously, I enjoy these discussions because we all end up learning something, so let's all make an effort to find some peer reviewed studies on the topic rather than throwing our personal knowledge back and forth.

Like this one: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perl...o.0030387&ct=1

It shows the processes used to make predictions about the genetic differences that could arise after speciation occurs, then uses gene mapping to evaluate those predictions. It's just one of many very thorough evaluations of Evolutionary Theory, in which there is no absolute affirmation, but strong evidence to show that we're heading in the right direction and need more time to look into the matter.

A quick quote: "The data allow us to construct a coherent and plausible model that accounts for each observation. During the course of human descent from our last common ancestor with chimpanzees. "

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

If you will refer to post #40, I said that evolution has been observed from start to finish on existing living entities. You misunderstood that to mean that nonliving matter has been witnessed transforming into living matter, which I have never said.

Russel, I know this, and it is really my point. Your discussion seems to be aimed at proving there is evidence for evolution. However the thread is not about evolution. Evolution has already been allowed in school. It is about whether or not creationism-a hypothetical explanation for initial origin of life-should be also allowed. Evolution does not answer this question and while I appreciate the time you took to research your posts, honestly evolution and whether or not one supports it is the answer to a question that wasn't really posted... Should creationism be taught in school?...
I feel I have sufficiently demonstrated that while it may not have been proven in a petri dish, neither has any other hypothesis, and therefore it deserves equal billing rather than being placed off in the "alternative beliefs" class while the other unproven hypothesis receives billing as "science's answer" even though it has yet to be documented by, well, science.

Originally Posted by jockeys

Even though I did post a link in post #128 about the Miller-Urey experiment that showed inorganic matter reconstituting itself into organic matter.

The funny thing about this is that you are making claims that Evolution is weakly developed and unevaluated, but I'm the one posting links. I'd appreciate your help in sorting through the information on the topic, there's quite a bit out there. I mean that seriously, I enjoy these discussions because we all end up learning something, so let's all make an effort to find some peer reviewed studies on the topic rather than throwing our personal knowledge back and forth.

There are indeed studies attempting to determine if organisms adapt or if simply less suited ones die out, but none of these, even the Miller-Urey experiment, seek to explain life's beginnings, which is the crux of my argument. Even Miller-Urey did not demonstrate this, only that by providing a gaseous environment of the chemicals in protein and the like, compounds could be created. You post quite a few links to studies that have nothing to do with whether there is support or not for the idea of creation, but rather much to do with natural selection/gene studies of species scientists think may have had genes mutate (adapt?). It may be interesting, but is an entirely different subject.

This is the "primordial soup" experiment I've referred to in other posts, in fact. Were they to do the same thing and *life* were the result, which then replicated itself....such could be empirical evidence; Regardless, with many, many researchers studying this, none have created life, even today-the Miller-Urey experiment was done decades-over half a century-ago.

Therefore, since there is zero empirical evidence of life occurring without outside help, I see nothing at all wrong with allowing creationism to be addressed in schools,on an equal basis with the other theory which requires just as much faith in just the right combination quite a few times...

Both or neither, with neither receiving preferential billing. Empirically, as it concerns the answer to the age old question of how life began, soup has nothing on creation as far as true advantage scientifically.

night folks!


John P.