Kevin's Watch

dennisrwood wrote:seems that folks all for calling for an exclusion to beliefs that many folks hold dearly, for something that hasn't been proven.

I'm sorry, which is the unproven belief and which is the one "dearly held" in this conversation?

Lord Foul wrote: Once again, evolution is not about the origin of life or man on this planet. Evolution is about the development of living things over time. Further, evolution is not about monkeys turning into men, or showing that humans are "merely" animals. Creationism and evolution really shouldn't be compared. If you want to compare, then use abiogenesis, which is the scientific study of the origin of life.

Yes, it is. It's spectacularly obvious that believers in Creation uphold the theory that mankind adapts to circumstances - for example, it's the only credible explanantion for differing racial characterisitcs.

On the other hand, it's equally obvious that evolutionistic theory, that one species can somehow mysteriously become another species entirely, is unsupported and unsupportable. You might as well claim that 'mother nature waved her magic wand'.

Lord Foul wrote: It doesn't upset me. But if a teacher is going to wholeheartedly teach Creationism in science class, then you might as well teach the stork theory as an alternative to child birth.

On the other hand - if a teacher is going to teach evolutionism in science class, they'd be better off teaching that children were 'accidentally' found in a pumpkin patch.

Edge wrote:Although I can to a certain extent see where you're coming from... if a particular theory were taught as undisputed fact - I would be horrified if my children were taught Darwinism as an undisputed 'scientific' reality.

Lord Foul wrote: Two points: evolution is a proven reality, and that is not open for debate (you can debate it, but it's like debating that the earth is flat).

Absolute rubbish. There is no definitive proof of evolutionism; it is nothing more or less than a theory. And as theories go, Creation is far more logical - unless you hold an unreasonable bias against the existence of an order of being superior to mankind.

Lord Foul wrote: Secondly: Darwinism is not evolution. Darwin's theory of evolution is not evolution, just as the theory of the sun orbiting the earth is not the sun orbiting the earth. Darwin's theory could be hopelessly wrong, but evolution would still exist/occur without it.

Yes it is and no it isn't.

Edge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote: Once again, evolution is not about the origin of life or man on this planet. Evolution is about the development of living things over time. Further, evolution is not about monkeys turning into men, or showing that humans are "merely" animals. Creationism and evolution really shouldn't be compared. If you want to compare, then use abiogenesis, which is the scientific study of the origin of life.

Yes, it is. It's spectacularly obvious that believers in Creation uphold the theory that mankind adapts to circumstances - for example, it's the only credible explanantion for differing racial characterisitcs.

On the other hand, it's equally obvious that evolutionistic theory, that one species can somehow mysteriously become another species entirely, is unsupported and unsupportable. You might as well claim that 'mother nature waved her magic wand'.

Lord Foul wrote: It doesn't upset me. But if a teacher is going to wholeheartedly teach Creationism in science class, then you might as well teach the stork theory as an alternative to child birth.

On the other hand - if a teacher is going to teach evolutionism in science class, they'd be better off teaching that children were 'accidentally' found in a pumpkin patch.

Edge wrote:Although I can to a certain extent see where you're coming from... if a particular theory were taught as undisputed fact - I would be horrified if my children were taught Darwinism as an undisputed 'scientific' reality.

Lord Foul wrote: Two points: evolution is a proven reality, and that is not open for debate (you can debate it, but it's like debating that the earth is flat).

Absolute rubbish. There is no definitive proof of evolutionism; it is nothing more or less than a theory. And as theories go, Creation is far more logical - unless you hold an unreasonable bias against the existence of an order of being superior to mankind.

Lord Foul wrote: Secondly: Darwinism is not evolution. Darwin's theory of evolution is not evolution, just as the theory of the sun orbiting the earth is not the sun orbiting the earth. Darwin's theory could be hopelessly wrong, but evolution would still exist/occur without it.

Yes it is and no it isn't.

You forgot to include "neener-neener-neener!" in your argument. Simply stating your views as fact and an opposing view as wishful thinking (at best) doesn't really qualify as debate.

It's more like a school-yard shoving match.

Plissken wrote:You forgot to include "neener-neener-neener!" in your argument. Simply stating your views as fact and an opposing view as wishful thinking (at best) doesn't really qualify as debate.

It's more like a school-yard shoving match.

And with a wave of the 'magic evolutionist wand'.... the statement that 'evolutionism is a scientifically proven fact' is somehow more credible than 'Creation is a possibility'. Gee, maybe I should have been more emphatic, and avoided the use of the word 'theory'.

dennisrwood wrote:but it's ok to tell children that God doesn't exist? seems that folks all for calling for an exclusion to beliefs that many folks hold dearly, for something that hasn't been proven.

Evolution has nothing to do with whether or not people believe that God exists.

It is merely a description of the natural forces that shape life over time.

Lord Foul wrote:Once again, evolution is not about the origin of life or man on this planet. Evolution is about the development of living things over time.

From Behe:

The theory's biggest embarrassment is the profound mystery of the origin of life. To avoid the subject, some Darwinists coyly say that the theory doesn't deal with life's origin; it concerns changes once life has started. But, as the National Academy's premise bullying makes clear, Darwinists care very much about the origin of life. Because they want to retain control of the premises of knowledge, they need the public conversation to presume that unguided natural forces are responsible for all aspects of life on Earth. Otherwise, if nature needed a little boost to get life started, then who's to say that factors different from the ones evolutionists study didn't have a role in shaping life? And if Darwinism has to prove its just-so stories instead of having them accepted as the default explanation, it would effectively lose its privileged position in Western intellectual society.

Edge, a new species being created from an existing species is observable, its what micro-evolution is. However, Lord Foul's statement that "evolution" is fact is questionable, b/c what type of evolution is he talking about? If he believes macro-evolution is a fact, then there is no use debating w/him.

Fine then -- those of you who think that Creationism should be taught in public schools -- explain to me why the fundamentalist Christian version should be taught -- and why my friend, a Hindu with twin kids going to the public schools should accept why this particular version by creation by the Christian God is OK to teach in science class, when the Hindu version is not??? And when she pays taxes just like everyone else???

I don't have a problem with Creationism being taught in private schools -- but I have a serious problem with the creation story of one particular religion being taught in public schools that are being paid for by all of the taxpayers.

In fact, as a non-fundamentalist Christian, I have no problem in thinking evolution is a natural process and in having my children being taught it in a science class.

I have no problem in believing that God is/was able to make natural laws and processes that the universe and living things follow.

It is my place, and that of the religious figures of my choice to teach my children about God. It is not the place of teachers in a public school to try to teach my children religious beliefs that I might or might not believe in.

Evolution is absolute scientific fact. Accepting it or not doesn't change that fact. We can prove it scientifically, no one can prove creationism.

Creationism should not be taught in schools because it is tantamount to teaching eugenics or racial superiority in schools. (the notion of race doesn't exist by the way) The bible speaks of man running the earth as a superior divine creation and that's just not true. We are just smarter but equal to the creatures of the earth.

Behe is bordering on absurdity with his totally uproven and unsubstantiated claims. He's a hack at best and an embarassment to Lehigh.

If one teaches creationism then it should teach all creation myths not just the christian version.

Its ironic that no one on this site claims to be a fundementalist yet some would hold fundementalist beliefs in terms of creation.

There is no use debating some one that can provide no proof nor explanation against something other than "I don't like it" or "It's not a fact even though its been proven a fact."

There are different types of music classes, but all of them deal with music. (Let's not worry about the definition of music at the moment.) Sculpture is a different form of art. It moves some people more then music does, some people less, but it's an "equally valid" form of art, if you take my meaning. But there's absolutely no reason to teach sculpture in a music class. Music has a certain nature, one far different from sculpture's, despite the fact that both are art forms that cause emotional reactions in people.

Some science classes teach theories about how life got to be the way it currently is, as opposed to what we know about the way it was millions and billions of years ago. Creationism also teaches how life got to be the way it is today. (Although I don't know what Creationism says about the difference between life today and life millions and billions of years ago, and nobody who has a belief along those lines has responded to my previous post.) The reason Creationism should not be taught in science classes can be compared to the reason sculpture should not be taught in music classes. Science attemps to understand how things work by observing what is observable, coming up with theories based on those observations, and testing those theories in whatever ways we can think of. Sometimes, the tests are nothing more than further observation. "We see X. X may have happened because of Y. Let's watch, and see if Y does, indeed, cause X." Sometimes, the tests are performed by people, and can be performed as often as we like. If the theory is that heavier things fall faster, we can drop a heavy and a light thing as many times as we want to test the theory. We hope to understand the processes of the universe these ways. Creationism does not fit into that. It's not science. Why teach it in a science class, where it cannot be examined scientifically, along with scientific theories of how life got to be the way it is today?

However, I can't imagine not also having sculpture classes in schools. Just because I prefer music, doesn't mean others shouldn't prefer sculpture. And I'm sure that teaching sculpture won't stop people from taking music classes, and composing new music. People often study both, and some eventually concentrate on one or the other. Some practice both all their lives. (Who first came up with the Big Bang theory? Class? Class? Anyone?) To ignore the entire topic of religion, not discussing its historical role in cultures/societies/politics throughout the world, is, imo, nearly criminal. What is arguably the most important factor of human existence is totally ignored? It should be taught much more thoroughly than it is in public schools, so we can come to understand each other. Our legal system came from England - which came, in large part, from Normandy when William conquered England in 1066 - and Normandy was largely Viking. So the roots of our legal system came from the Vikings, who were extremely devout. What drove the Ottoman Empire? Who is the most influential figure in history? (Jesus, imo, whether he was just a brilliant, normal human or otherwise.) What common ground do these things show? Is it worth looking into? I think so.


I read Behe years ago. I don't remember enough detail, but I know I was impressed. I was spectacularly unimpressed by the rebuttals I read at talk.origin.

Richard Dawkins, the prominent Darwinian popularizer, wrote that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist," and few people give up their intellectual fulfillment quietly. At a more banal level, many manage to feel good about themselves by feeling superior to creationists. While one may not have a clue about the subtleties of the evidence for or problems with Darwinism, he is automatically part of the smart set when he accepts evolution.

Conversely, creationist get that warm, fuzzy feeling that they are special beings or children of god. They can rest assured that their black-and-white world remains just that without considering using their own evolvedminds.

On the other hand, it's equally obvious that evolutionistic theory, that one species can somehow mysteriously become another species entirely, is unsupported and unsupportable. You might as well claim that 'mother nature waved her magic wand'.

Again just because you don't understand doesn't make it "mysterious". Life adapts to a changing planet. Its really a very simple premise. Its fully supported by science because it has been scientifically proven. I'm not saying this just to hear it. Trying reading some actual studies into evolution, molecular biology, genetics, or even paleontology. I'm not trying to attack your god, so don't take it in such a way. Again evolution doesn't state how life began because they don't know how life began not as some caveat to cover themselves.

Absolute rubbish. There is no definitive proof of evolutionism; it is nothing more or less than a theory. And as theories go, Creation is far more logical - unless you hold an unreasonable bias against the existence of an order of being superior to mankind.

Yes, I'm dreadfully sorry but there is. You think creation is more logical? A deity made man and all life appear and it has remained static since then? You've got to be kidding me...There is no proof of a deity, nor has there ever been, nor has there even been proof of any of his miraclous creations, nor can it be scientifically proven, or any type or kind of proven. Life has absolutely not remained static it has changed and changed and changed some more and it is still changing. What proof would you need to believe? I'll just take one personally witnessed divinely spontaneously created complex creature (meaning not just some little bacterium) and you've got me convinced.
On the other hand, I'll can show you an enormous fossil record with distinct morphological phyletic traits illustrating lineage, several viewable, testable, mechanisms for the advent of evolution (its such a dirty word... ) , a clear genetic basis for both of the previously mentioned phenomenon, and finally undeniable results from both the natural world and extensive testing of the subject.
On second thought... that doesn't make any sense. I'll just stop believing it and it won't be true anymore...

Fist,

The problem with Behe is that his hypothesis was never tested by him and when others tested it they were able to show that in every instance his "irreducible complexity" was anything but. From the flagellum to various biochemical compounds to immuno-antibodies, science was able to illustrate that even basic components can be broken down and still have a useful function despite the expectation by Behe that they couldn't be reduced.

Kinslaughterer wrote:

Absolute rubbish. There is no definitive proof of evolutionism; it is nothing more or less than a theory. And as theories go, Creation is far more logical - unless you hold an unreasonable bias against the existence of an order of being superior to mankind.

Creation is only logical if you have a total bias toward the existence of a being so supreme that he could wave a magic wand and create all this instantly.

--Avatar

Kin: Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
that title doesn't show a bias? simple facts? evolutionist want evolution taught as fact and have creation excluded. you sight the proof of evolution, please link. because if there was clear proof of the origin of life you would think it would be posted somewhere. Darwinism was used to found eugenics.
you keep telling me that evolution is a fact, adaptation is claimed as evolution. transitional anyone? where is the proof, and break it down simply for us poor ignorant creationist.

But where is proof of God, Dennis? You cant demand proof of evolution and not show proof of God.

To start, IIRC, that title was taken from somewhere else, (perhaps the paper quoted?) as the footnote that the asterisk points to indicates.

Second, the continual claim that "Darwinism" led to the foundation of eugenics is pretty much like saying that christianity led to the Inquisition, or that atomic power led to Hiroshima. True, but meaningless in the sense of proving "evil" or even "wrong" in those founding concepts.

All knowledge is morally neutral. It is the application of that knowledge, (usually by people who had nothing to do with "discovering" it) that has positive or negative implications.

You're getting answers you don't agree with, so keep asking the same questions. Personally, I thought that your arguments were countered well, but maybe what you're looking for here are links to actual scientific papers?

I'm sure Kin at least will be able to oblige, and in the meanwhile, I'll see what I can find. Back soon

--Avatar

Well said, Avatar!

Edge wrote:

Plissken wrote:You forgot to include "neener-neener-neener!" in your argument. Simply stating your views as fact and an opposing view as wishful thinking (at best) doesn't really qualify as debate.

It's more like a school-yard shoving match.

And with a wave of the 'magic evolutionist wand'.... the statement that 'evolutionism is a scientifically proven fact' is somehow more credible than 'Creation is a possibility'. Gee, maybe I should have been more emphatic, and avoided the use of the word 'theory'.

First off, I never said which of you was the school yard bully in this case.

However, scientifically proven facts are more easily taught in schools that are not "faith based" than "facts" that require faith to be accepted.

Without faith, specific Creationist theories crumble. Without faith, scientific observations - though lacking in the poetry I require for a belief structure - meet the requirements for non-religiously based instruction.

It's funny how the creationists blindly think their religion is truth, yet somehow it does not even register in their minds that there exist other religions with their own takes on creation.

Loremaster wrote:But where is proof of God, Dennis? You cant demand proof of evolution and not show proof of God.

To a religous person, and someone who does not beleive in evolution (Someone like Dennis) Proof of God is EVERYWHERE.