Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Originally Posted by xman

You wouldn't suggest that if you release a rock from your grasp that it would do anything less than fall.

X

That is assuming that the laws of gravity dont change, or possibly morph into some other law!

Originally Posted by xman

Just because abiogenesis is shrouded in mist doesn't mean that evolution is. Evolution is factual. It's as much a successful theory as gravity is. You wouldn't suggest that if you release a rock from your grasp that it would do anything less than fall. Both Gravity and evolution are successful theories of that magnitude.

X

X,
again, if you will read through my posts, I am ambivalent about evolution itself. Perhaps it happens, perhaps not-if it had actually been conclusively observed it would no longer be classified as a theory, but that doesn't mean it doesn't. So please stop arguing points with me which I have not challenged one way or the other...
Ultimately whether or not "evolution" occurs doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on whether creation occurred or should be allowed to be taught in schools. The only reason "evolution" had to be addressed is that many confuse it with other theories which attempt to explain how life started, such as Russel's abiogenesis theory, and mistakenly refer to those theories as "evolution" and attempt to use observations which may even support evolution to apply in turn to those theories, when in fact they do not.
One could observe a horse giving birth to a cow, or even a fish hatching frog eggs...and it may be an observation which could be supportive of evolution but it would not support abiogenesis or any of the other theories of how life came to pass, and therefore really has nothing to do with creation, abiogenesis or even turtles on their backs carried by magical pink unicorns. Evolution does not claim life came from nothing, and while I may question some of its beliefs (it is still a theory, after all) it is not what this debate is about. Evidence which can be interpreted to support evolution, therefore, is irrelevant-and in any case, cannot be used to claim other theories for the beginning of life have more "scientific evidence" than creation or other theories for how things began.
Therefore if such theories are all on an equal basis, with regard to actual science (e.g. none have been proven or disproved, none have evidence that cannot be questioned by opposing viewpoints) then these theories in their most basic forms have equal footing in a classroom. It isn't as if such theories on either side of this receive much study there, anyway. After that the (already approved) curriculum on evolution begins and the lions share of time is involved in studying the various branches and where evolution supporters believe each species derived from. Even that may not be delved into THAT deeply.
So in reality, as to how things began it is likely both sides of the coin can be covered in less than an hour. On the one hand, one group believes the original life forms were created by a preexistent being or beings (without getting into whether that means "God" or not, which would be a religious exercise) and the other group believes the chemicals happened in the right place in the right ratios in the right order to react with each other and in the right sequence so as to reproduce, propagate, etc etc.
There. Likely, that's about as deep as any classroom goes anyway, as it is impossible to prove either side of the coin to the opposing viewpoints' likings.
And none of it has anything to do with "evolution".

John P.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Evolution does not claim life came from nothing, and while I may question some of its beliefs (it is still a theory, after all) it is not what this debate is about.

This is my point. It is NOT 'just' a theory in the social usage of the term 'theory'. It is an established fact which has been observed repeatedly in more ways than I can count. Gravity is also "just' a theory, but the rock will fall. 'Theory' is used scientifically to give credibility to a hypothesis which can be tested and is falsifiable. Creationism=ID is not a theory at all in scientific terms because it cannot be falsified or tested. It is not credible and has no place in education.

BUT ... if you want to leave that argument, the fossil record leads us backward to increasingly simpler life forms. It is more logical to assume that the earliest and simplest of life forms came about through abiogenesis because it can be understood electrochemically than to suggest that it was supernatural or magical.

X

The Short Proof of Evolution
by
Ian Johnston
Malaspina University-College
Nanaimo, BC

[This document is in the public domain and may be used, in whole or in part, without charge and without permission, by anyone, provided the source is acknowledged. Last revised in March 2005]

We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Russel, this is tiring. Again you've placed words in my mouth. If I had said the highlighted portion of your quote in reference to "evolution" I would have said evolution; however if you read back through my posts on this topic, you will see me very specifically state that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive, and I believe I even went so far as to point out Darwin himself was not an atheist.

Ok, you didn't say it explicitly, but there are no other theories being presented. There are the various forms of creation and then there's evolution/autogenesis.

Saying that you meant "the other theories" doesn't hold water because there are no others.

(can we dispense with comments like "this is tiring"? There has been a miscommunication, if it takes a few posts to straighten things out, so be it, but there's no need to make comments like that.)

Originally Posted by JohnP

Therefore if such theories are all on an equal basis, with regard to actual science (e.g. none have been proven or disproved, none have evidence that cannot be questioned by opposing viewpoints) then these theories in their most basic forms have equal footing in a classroom.

John, I'm not sure you use the terms science, theory, proof, evidence, and fact the same way as scientists use them. If you want to be philosophical yes, by certain standards you cannot prove anything ever - your senses may be deceiving you and any instrument you build to enhance them is just some additional layer between what you observe and you, so there is no guarantee whatsoever that it doesn't change things in some mean way just to trick you.
Everything in science is either observation or a theory and no theory is ever complete or proven. That's just what science is - always open for correction and improvement.

Originally Posted by JohnP

So in reality, as to how things began it is likely both sides of the coin can be covered in less than an hour. On the one hand, one group believes the original life forms were created by a preexistent being or beings (without getting into whether that means "God" or not, which would be a religious exercise) and the other group believes the chemicals happened in the right place in the right ratios in the right order to react with each other and in the right sequence so as to reproduce, propagate, etc etc.
There. Likely, that's about as deep as any classroom goes anyway, as it is impossible to prove either side of the coin to the opposing viewpoints' likings.

Indeed that's an interesting way to handle it and is more or less how it was presented to me. I would include a couple of other possibilities - the original life forms were always there and didn't need to be created (you can always postulate it, can't you?), or a completely random fluctuation (not prohibited by any natural law as we know them, just extremely unlikely). Also I'm not sure 'the right place, the right ratios, etc.' presents correctly the other side - it's a speculation on the size of the phase space and there is absolutely no reason to make such speculation.

However, as pointed out earlier there is a big difference between the most common scientific hypothesis (abiogenesis) and any other one - the former can be studied by the scientific method, none of the others can. I can see a very valid argument that anything that science does not apply to has no place in science class at all.
After all the question of origin of life (just as any other question) doesn't need to come in just one class, so it could be addressed based on context.

For example, even though my computer was created, if people hadn't come up with the Quantum Theory and be able to calculate the tunneling probabilities of the unobserved electrons, this computer would have never ever been created. And yes Einstein was convinced God plays dice, yet that's the theory which describes the world the best and all deterministic theories have been demonstrated wrong (i.e. lacking predictive power).

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

In the spirit of the topic of this thread, does Palin want creationism taught as science?

This is the only quote I've seen from her so far, so I don't know. It appears on the surface at least from this quote that she wants them taught side by side so that debate could occur

I would like to update my afore-mentioned ignorance with another quote from Palin (from October of '06):

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:
"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

I don't wish to siderail the current debate by posting here and now, but this is the most relevant thread for it so there you have it

Originally Posted by xman

This is my point. It is NOT 'just' a theory in the social usage of the term 'theory'. It is an established fact which has been observed repeatedly in more ways than I can count. Gravity is also "just' a theory, but the rock will fall. 'Theory' is used scientifically to give credibility to a hypothesis which can be tested and is falsifiable. Creationism=ID is not a theory at all in scientific terms because it cannot be falsified or tested. It is not credible and has no place in education.

BUT ... if you want to leave that argument, the fossil record leads us backward to increasingly simpler life forms. It is more logical to assume that the earliest and simplest of life forms came about through abiogenesis because it can be understood electrochemically than to suggest that it was supernatural or magical.

X

I believe Newtonian understanding of gravity is more of an observation than a theory. Newton sees an apple fall, and postulates that there is some force that cause it to happen.

Scientists still don't have much of any kind of real explanation for how gravity works.

Originally Posted by xman

Creationism=ID is not a theory at all in scientific terms because it cannot be falsified or tested.

It should be taught in history class then?

Originally Posted by xman

It is not credible

Yes it is

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight.

That guy is relying on what is known as "truth by blatant assertion".

He also throws up the "primordial soup" handwaving argument, even though his case is "airtight". He t living things?brings this up in the very same paragraph that he states that all living things must have a parent! So what about the fir

So, some creatures lived a long time before other creatures....Does that then necessarily follow that the creatures who came after came directly from the creatures before them?

It may be the case, but that is making an assumption, which is not part of scientific reasoning.

I once put a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in the fridge, since I wasn't really that hungry. I came back after the weekend and opened the fridge. The PBJ was gone, and now there was 1/2 a pepperoni pizza and a six pack of beer in there!

Now, I could hypothesize that PBJs left alone long enough will change into leftover pizza and beer, or perhaps a roomate had a hand in all of this. Unheard of! You never actually see that roomate of yours, just his laundry and a check for his half the rent (a week late..)

A hypothesis is based on an assumption. Most scientists are trying to validate the theory of evolutiuon, so they operate on the assumption that what they see is a linear process. First came the ameobas, then the jellyfish, then the fish....and so forth..apes, man. It's a slam dunk! It's obvious, isn't it?

However, what if a set of scientists applied a different set of assumptions? They could say that the voids in the fossils record are scientific evidence that different creatures may have been created at different times, since there is no record of gradual change over time.

Again, evolutionry theory relies on a set of assumptions, that this came from that, even if there is no direct evidence of that other than cronologically.