Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Originally Posted by Seraphim

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.

Then you'd test it by placing more PBJ in the fridge and seeing if they turned into pizza and beer, then you'd try other fridges, it's called experimentation. Evolution isn't based on a single set of observations by one or even a few individuals.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

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.

I would point out that you believe wrong. There were countless of observations that things fall before Newton, and if you are familiar with history you would also know that there were no lacks of explainations, yet he was the first one to actually present a mathematical description of exactly how this happens, which could be used to predict other unobserved phenomena, then measure them and find out if they match the theory. Scientists have a lot more of a real explaination for how gravity works, there is a gravitational field complete with the corresponding field theory. They have not observed many phenomena that such a theory predicts (gravitational waves, quantization, higgs-boson, etc.), but they are currently spending a lot of money (yours included) to either confirm these predictions or reject them (in the later case there will be a clear need for more accurate theory).

One of my friends was taught in science class that the way snow happens is God sends angels to carry each snowflake to the earth. That was in different country, but I am certain there could be a very healthy debate on this particular issue with pretty much the same arguments that were listed in this thread.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

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

Not quite.

It's completely consistent with all known laws of physics that distortions of space-time by massive objects creates what we see as the gravitational force. Einstein's work showed the entanglement of space and time and how they can be influenced by extremes of energy and mass. Exactly how the objects get an amount of mass is still being investigated but the Higgs field is just about the only feasible answer currently.

Newton hypothesized that there was a "force" at work that attracted objects to one another, he called it gravity, but the name doesn't matter, it's the hypothesis that two masses have a way of interacting. It turns out that a knowledge of the fabric of space-time would be necessary to give a more precise answer, but the result is the same.

Originally Posted by gugi

I am certain there could be a very healthy debate on this particular issue with pretty much the same arguments that were listed in this thread.

I agree. Mostly what has been presented so far are thoughts for or against evolution, not so much for creationism. There is another thread concerning the creator and pink unicorns

Lee,

From my perspective, the reason for discussing evolution's validity is that it points out exactly how dissimilar creationism is.

Creationism in the classroom boils down to it being considered as a scientific theory. If the creation proponents were active in getting creation taught in a philosophy or religious studies class the issue would be different, but they are trying to get it assimilated into the curriculum of biological studies, so...

Creationism is not a scientific theory because there can be no refutation, testing, or even identification of the principal cause for the effects being explained. Unlike Evolutionary theory which has all of those components.

Creationism is not a neutral and equal stance on the issue of origins because it favors those that believe in the supernatural, whereas Evolution just says that the supernatural is not necessary, the question of the existence of the supernatural is left to the individual.

Creation is a slippery slope, if it is considered a scientific theory, because as soon as a certain organism is labeled as being "created" then the door of inquiry about that organism is shut for all time because any further studies might prove the "creation" label wrong, thus making a fool of whomever labeled it. Whereas Evolution is always open to reinterpretation of the data in light of new studies (as are all scientific theories).

It is also a slippery slope because it sets a precedent for other fields of science to be opened up to supernatural conjectures. i.e. "all of the matter in the universe gets it's mass from interactions with a "heavy spirit"", or "this new strain of bacteria is resistant to our best medications because it is the work of "gremlins""

And then, who decides which supernatural explanation for a given phenomena is legitimate?

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

X,
I went to science class too. Spare me the lesson on theory, as I sat in the same class. Evolution is no more "fact" than any other theory. It is a hypothesis which is a workable explanation to a problem. I may not be a biologist or even a genome scientist (that would be my little sister, who I'm very proud of) but the arguments you are trying to "enlighten" me with are from no farther than junior high science. Difference between the science class definition of theory and common one is something that has already been discussed in this thread, which if you have noticed, is about whether creation should be allowed as a subject in school. Not evolution in all its glory. Evolution may or may not occur, frankly I don't care-it doesn't interfere with my understanding of creation, and so far no evidence has been brought forward to make this change.
At any rate, evolution has not been proven, it is not a law, just something that is easy to believe. And again, it has absolutely nothing to do with our topic. Evolution does NOT explain the beginning, and is only a feasible way to grasp how so many different species exist.
As a point of fact, the not-so-fossil record also shows very simple life forms. Does this mean we are devolving....?
How do you explain the existence of dinosaurs billions of years ago but bacteria today...?? It would seem that your own definition of "theory" and "hypothesis" are wrong; furthermore "not provable" does not mean the same thing as "not credible" else your pet abiogenesis theory would belong in the same heap outside the classroom that you feel creation belongs in.
Merriam Webster defines theory (the scientific sense) as:

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Therefore, in the purest sense of the word, creation is just as "scientific" a theory as any other. It provides one possible solution which in turn can be used to explain phenomena (e.g. our existence) observed.
Back on subject,
I cannot make you believe in something you do not, nor can you prove something for which there really is no proof. Face it, you, nor I is going to convince each other, I that life was at some point created, you that it was not. It is my position since neither point is provable at this point in time, neither should be excluded as a possibility.

If I were theoretically to shoot you (or anyone-just for argument's sake) did I shoot you? or was there an exothermic reaction in a confined space driving a mass of lead in the one vector which it is free to travel until the gases from the exothermic reaction are free, leaving inertia to carry the mass of lead, with an energy which happens to be a product of the mass of the lead and the velocity with which it has been accelerated, finally to impact and pass into its target until this same amount of energy is expended in the target.

I would say I shot you, abiogenesis would say there was a chemical reaction.

Who would be right? would either be provably wrong? Not likely. I would argue it was unlikely the chemical reaction took place by accident, abiogenesis would argue that through time, heat, or perhaps lightning, could have caused the chemicals in the confined space to react, creating the overpressure and resultant projectile actions of the mass of lead.

It is the same argument. With no one else as a witness, eons later would anyone be able to prove one way or the other? One side would hold there was a "shooter" the other that, since obviously there cannot be a "shooter" it had to have occurred through chance.

I have already posted links to the varying probabilities of what abiogenesis proponents feel happened, and it doesn't look good. Likewise, secure in their belief there was no act of creation, ever they feel my point of view is not possible. So...should one religion (atheism) be favored over others (theism, Christianity, Judaeism, etc) ? Not in the classroom. We simply do not know, X, and as such, neither should receive "preferential" treatment just because many believe it.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

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.)

Russel, it has been more than "a few posts" and you and others keep bringing up "evolution" as proof that somehow creation could not have occurred/does not belong in classrooms. It is an unrelated theory, and while many support both theories, you are also wrong to lump two theories together ("evolution/autogenesis") they are not the same theory, and autogenesis does not and should not count evidence for evolution as evidence against creation or for abiogenesis, autogenesis, etc etc etc.
When I mention it is tiring I am simply telling you the truth. It is the equivalent of being in a discussion about the flavor of a steak, and people keep interjecting that "it can't taste like that-because candy tastes good". It is frustrating at best. Perhaps candy DOES taste good, but it has nothing to do with the conversation. Likewise, the supercilious comments making assumptions about what creation is or is not are simply applying your personal beliefs and assumptions of what I believe or perhaps what I believe creation is, is tiring. No need to continue preaching the various experiments you feel "prove" evolution as somehow arguments that creation can not be tested or observed. It requires no more proof than the other hypotheses that you and others bring forward.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Creationism is not a scientific theory because there can be no refutation, testing, or even identification of the principal cause for the effects being explained. Unlike Evolutionary theory which has all of those components.

Russel, ultimately, I'm not positive why you keep defending evolution. It is already in the classroom and has been for decades. Evolution is not the pet theory that I'm attacking (other than to point out it has not been proven). Abiogenesis (if you prefer that term) is. It also has the same shortcomings, as a hypothesis, as you claim creation does. It so far has not been proven, cannot be tested, etc. the only thing that can be tested is individual chemical reactions which some believe were involved in life's beginnings. It's a no-win situation, as even were people to develop a complete life form, it would be difficult for them 1) to prove it could have happened randomly and 2) to prove that it did. Especially given the incredible probability against it happening successfully. Evolution however, if anything could be called evidence of creation...the ability to adapt to an environment, conveniently already programmed into an organism's DNA....otherwise, dead organisms do not reproduce (or adapt).

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Creationism is not a neutral and equal stance on the issue of origins because it favors those that believe in the supernatural, whereas Evolution just says that the supernatural is not necessary, the question of the existence of the supernatural is left to the individual.

Again with the evolution. It is your "abiogenesis" theory I have issue with, not evolution, which makes no claims requiring ridiculously thin margins of probability. Evolution does not make any claims one way or the other about how things began, not even your statement of "the supernatural is not necessary". It simply does not address it. Others wish to add that in. To be honest, belief in creation also no more requires belief in the "supernatural" than does your own theory, although if you wish to believe in God, I would be right there with you. You could believe, for instance, that time is a circle, and that we (and the rest of life) were engineered by pre-existing life forms. Heck, if you want to believe we achieve time travel, you could even argue creation was done by us. These are all creation theories. Physics is ambivalent on the existence of God (or anything else for that matter) but as years go by, more, not less, unbelievable things are being found.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Creation is a slippery slope, if it is considered a scientific theory, because as soon as a certain organism is labeled as being "created" then the door of inquiry about that organism is shut for all time because any further studies might prove the "creation" label wrong, thus making a fool of whomever labeled it. Whereas Evolution is always open to reinterpretation of the data in light of new studies (as are all scientific theories).

Russel you speak in absolutes, and I believe this is a mistake. Creation is no more slippery slope than abiogenesis is, and closes no more doors than it does. Research does not draw to a close, regardless of how a particular organism is thought to have arrived here. The door of inquiry being shut for all time is a paranoid argument at best. It simply is not so.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

It is also a slippery slope because it sets a precedent for other fields of science to be opened up to supernatural conjectures. i.e. "all of the matter in the universe gets it's mass from interactions with a "heavy spirit"", or "this new strain of bacteria is resistant to our best medications because it is the work of "gremlins""

Again, wrong. Creation has no bearing on this-it is only when one presumes to know who or what the creator (or creators) is/are, that doors are closed. Ultimately we do not know, but we can study, explore, and research. Ruling out the possibility of anything or anyone of intelligence prior to our existence is ludicrous and in fact, is the act of closing a door for fear of what might happen if it is left as a possibility.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

And then, who decides which supernatural explanation for a given phenomena is legitimate?

Ultimately, I do not believe in magic quite to the extent you seem to think. All "magic" and "supernatural" events are no more so in reality than the proverbial card up the magician's sleeve; they are simply ideas and natural events we do not understand. There was a time thunder was considered to be supernatural. Now that we understand it, it is considered a natural occurrence. So, was it ever really "supernatural" at all? No. Likewise, my belief in creation (or my belief in God) requires no belief in the "supernatural", only in the possibility that we do not understand everything just yet. For all you or I know, there have been many universes and many "creations" "Abiogenesis events" or whatever, prior to each successive "big bang" or whatever one believes occurred at the beginning of the universe. Ruling out a creator simply because many do not believe in "supernatural events" is like ruling out lightning because there is no such thing as static electricity.

John P.

Arguing about evolution with a "Creationist" is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, eventually you'll figure out that the pig likes it.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

From my perspective, the reason for discussing evolution's validity is that it points out exactly how dissimilar creationism is.

Creationism in the classroom boils down to it being considered as a scientific theory. If the creation proponents were active in getting creation taught in a philosophy or religious studies class the issue would be different, but they are trying to get it assimilated into the curriculum of biological studies, so...

John, I've stated this a few times now.

You ask why I (and others) have to keep bringing up evolution when the debate is about creationism, but I've pointed out exactly why. Creationists seek to get equal "air time" as is given to evolutionists, thus an inherent entangling of the two.

It's not a theory that deserves to be taught in a science classroom and the best way to show that is to do a comparison/contrast with what kind of theories do belong in a science classroom, namely Evolutionary theory.

There have been no proofs even hinting at a creator, just at a lack of detail in evolutionary theory.

There have been no proposals for how to identify the creator (because that would be the next step for any other scientific theory).

How does the scientific process continue after an organism is labeled as "created"? To look further shows that the label is only a default, in which case it's best to just say "we're not absolutely sure, yet" (which evolutionists do currently).

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Not quite.

It's completely consistent with all known laws of physics that distortions of space-time by massive objects creates what we see as the gravitational force. Einstein's work showed the entanglement of space and time and how they can be influenced by extremes of energy and mass. Exactly how the objects get an amount of mass is still being investigated but the Higgs field is just about the only feasible answer currently.

Newton hypothesized that there was a "force" at work that attracted objects to one another, he called it gravity, but the name doesn't matter, it's the hypothesis that two masses have a way of interacting. It turns out that a knowledge of the fabric of space-time would be necessary to give a more precise answer, but the result is the same.

I guess this is the point I was trying to make. The feasible answer they currently have is a proposed theoretical particle that would make the current equations work out OK.

Ah, sorry for the misreading.

Yes, the Higgs field (and it's constituent boson) are the most likely answer. There may be a better answer but it will have to be of a very similar nature if it's not the precise field and particle predicted by Higgs.

Unless another Einstein comes around and mucks things up with additional layers of mind blowing complexity. I broke out my physics textbooks at work on Friday to see if I could work through some of the topics that we skipped over when I took the courses and man, that stuff is heavy, no wonder it was left for higher classes.