Joanne Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 The paper is for a creation based biology class. It's assumed and expected that the paper will embrace a non evolutionary model. I signed him up for the class, I am not arguing with that. But, I don't exactly believe in a straight Creation model. I mean, I believe that God created whatever science will ultimately be discovered as our history. I also have not studied the issue enough to easily assist him in finding a topic he can use. He needs to use no fewer than 3 arguments against each of 3 current evolutionary theories and state 3 scientific reasons why he disagrees. Are there evolutionary theories that are not literal, 7 day, young earth, dinosaours on the ark that we can refute? I don't even know what "evolutionary" theories might exist. We are going to the library this evening. The other issue I *can* handle by myself is not waiting so long to attempt a high school level paper as a freshman in a high school level class as a freshman. He doesn't quite believe, however, that I know what I am talking about when it comes to writing a paper. Joanne, leaves muttering under her breath about 2 college degrees, one with Honors in English, graduate school...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_l_e_0..Q_c Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I'm not sure I understand what you're looking for. He's got to refute evolutionary theories ? Because this quote of yours is getting me confused: Are there evolutionary theories that are not literal, 7 day, young earth, dinosaours on the ark that we can refute? All evolutionary theories are not literal, 7 days young earth, etc... They all claim the world is gazillion years old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamaT Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 If you go to answersingenesis.org and click on Get Answers at the top, and then Evolution in the left side bar, you should get a lot of information for your student to use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daisy Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 There are many theories of origins out there... *Naturalistic Evolution - (Even within this you have varying theories about "how" that happened) *Theistic Evolution - God used evolution in creation. *Intelligent Design - (Could aliens fall into this category, too? LOL. JUST JOKING.) *Young Earth Creation - literally 7/24 hr periods *Old Earth Creation - God created the world but did it in 7 long ages *Gap Theory suggests that God created dinosaurs & then started over between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. *The theory that God could have created the universe in 7 literal days but chose to make it appear millions of years old. Wow, and I'm sure I'm barely scratching the surface. I'd just pick a few and start hammering away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted October 5, 2009 Author Share Posted October 5, 2009 I'm not sure I understand what you're looking for. He's got to refute evolutionary theories ? Because this quote of yours is getting me confused: All evolutionary theories are not literal, 7 days young earth, etc... They all claim the world is gazillion years old. Let me be more clear, and I do understand your confusion. "We" don't believe in an absolutely literal, 7 day as we understand them creation. "We" *do* believe in God and God as Creator. Are there any evolutionary theories we can refute (and therefore satisfy the agreed upon topic) that do not require a literalist Christian perspective? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in VA Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 I'm not sure if you could go this direction, but how about using Documentary Hypothesis theory of Genesis as a basis for showing the Genesis story is not meant to be used to explain the science of creation? It would kind of skirt the issue, sort of coming in the back door, so to speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Joanne, it sounds like the assignment is to refute at least three evolutionary theories. And it sounds like the problem is that you and your son do not necessarily disagree with evolution? In a case like this (where the conclusion is given as part of the assignment) I would expect the paper to be a regurgitation of what was taught in class. I wouldn't look to find an argument that I agreed with necessarily, just spit back what the teacher or the textbook had said. (But then, I debated in high school and got used to arguing persuasively positions I didn't hold.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 I'm not sure if you could go this direction, but how about using Documentary Hypothesis theory of Genesis as a basis for showing the Genesis story is not meant to be used to explain the science of creation? It would kind of skirt the issue, sort of coming in the back door, so to speak. ...being familiar with the documentary hypothesis, I don't think that its use would fulfil the intent of this assignment. Basically the argument you are being asked to make is that Genesis is literally true, and the documentary hypothesis does not support that. If you really want to skirt the issue I have a few ideas: 1. Macro vs. micro evolution--there is undisputed evidence that animals adapt to their surrounding and evolve to fit their environment, with survival of the fittest coming into play. However, there is little or no evidence that animals evolve into different kinds of animals (macro evolution). 2. Steady state assumptions and their problems. If, for instance, C14 dating depends on a 'normal' ratio of C12 to C14 always having been present in living creatures, is there evidence that that was not always the ratio? That's just one example. I don't have the data to confirm or deny this specific one. 3. What if animals are symbiotic with other ones that are not believed to be present at the same time in history? I have heard it alleged that bees and flowers are an example of this. 4. Catastrophies and their sudden effects vs. gradual change over time. Consider the Flood or Mount St. Helens or Krakatoa or a large meteor hitting the earth--all would be examples of catastrophies that disrupt the natural processes of reproduction and population. Evolution depends to a great extent on a steady state of population and on the assumption that layers in the earth are due to gradual, steady laying down of debris with time. If a catastrophy causes many layers to deposit during a short time, then it would cause that area to have the appearance of a much greater age than reality. I'm sorry that I don't have more examples that are specific, but I have not studied this thoroughly in a very long time. Do you own the Apologia General Science book? My recollection from reviewing it at a conference is that it had lots of examples of this kind of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdurfee Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 ...being familiar with the documentary hypothesis, I don't think that its use would fulfil the intent of this assignment. Basically the argument you are being asked to make is that Genesis is literally true, and the documentary hypothesis does not support that. If you really want to skirt the issue I have a few ideas: 1. Macro vs. micro evolution--there is undisputed evidence that animals adapt to their surrounding and evolve to fit their environment, with survival of the fittest coming into play. However, there is little or no evidence that animals evolve into different kinds of animals (macro evolution). 2. Steady state assumptions and their problems. If, for instance, C14 dating depends on a 'normal' ratio of C12 to C14 always having been present in living creatures, is there evidence that that was not always the ratio? That's just one example. I don't have the data to confirm or deny this specific one. 3. What if animals are symbiotic with other ones that are not believed to be present at the same time in history? I have heard it alleged that bees and flowers are an example of this. 4. Catastrophies and their sudden effects vs. gradual change over time. Consider the Flood or Mount St. Helens or Krakatoa or a large meteor hitting the earth--all would be examples of catastrophies that disrupt the natural processes of reproduction and population. Evolution depends to a great extent on a steady state of population and on the assumption that layers in the earth are due to gradual, steady laying down of debris with time. If a catastrophy causes many layers to deposit during a short time, then it would cause that area to have the appearance of a much greater age than reality. I'm sorry that I don't have more examples that are specific, but I have not studied this thoroughly in a very long time. Do you own the Apologia General Science book? My recollection from reviewing it at a conference is that it had lots of examples of this kind of thing. I think this response will get your wheels turning. In addition, I want to mention the concept of "irreducible complexity". It's the term used to explain certain biologic processes that are unable to be reduced any further and still function (ie bacterial flagellum). Basically it supports the concept of "something" out of nothing which was created by a "designer" as opposed to "something" out of "nothing" which was nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joy at Home Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 If you go to answersingenesis.org and click on Get Answers at the top, and then Evolution in the left side bar, you should get a lot of information for your student to use. I was going to suggest this site. But Answers in Genesis DOES advocate a young earth Creation. Still, it has a wealth or archived articles that might benefit you. Blessings, Lisa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 (edited) If you go to answersingenesis.org and click on Get Answers at the top, and then Evolution in the left side bar, you should get a lot of information for your student to use. Except that (not to debate he facts) AIG does not portrait a "real" version of the Theory of Evolution. They make up a "straw-man" version. The teachers for this assignment might not mind, but Joanne wouldn't be doing her son any favors by going to a site that seriously misrepresents the Theory of Evolution. Bill Edited October 6, 2009 by Spy Car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Except that (not to debate he facts) AIG does not portrait a "real" version of the Theory of Evolution. They make up a "straw-man" version. The teachers for this assignment might not mind, but Joanne wouldn't be doing her son any favors by going to a site that serious misrepresents the Theory of Evolution. Bill She did say, "Help, not debate." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_l_e_0..Q_c Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 I don't know if this is acceptable, but how about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster Warning: some Intelligent Design proponents may be offended, as the people behind FSM are mocking Intelligent Design. Still, the FSM theory should be easy to refute ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 She did say, "Help, not debate." Who is debating? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiobrain Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 There are many theories of origins out there... *Naturalistic Evolution - (Even within this you have varying theories about "how" that happened) *Theistic Evolution - God used evolution in creation. *Intelligent Design - (Could aliens fall into this category, too? LOL. JUST JOKING.) *Young Earth Creation - literally 7/24 hr periods *Old Earth Creation - God created the world but did it in 7 long ages *Gap Theory suggests that God created dinosaurs & then started over between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. *The theory that God could have created the universe in 7 literal days but chose to make it appear millions of years old. Wow, and I'm sure I'm barely scratching the surface. I'd just pick a few and start hammering away. Can I add my personal favorite evolutionary theory....always laughed at, but I adore it.... The Aquatic Ape Theory. I am a strange person though. :D Also, we are obsessed with fractals in our house... that seems to explain a certain amount of evolutionary cohesiveness to me, but your assignment is to "debunk" not explore. oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jg_puppy Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 I am not sure if I know exactly what you are looking for. I think you are looking for a Christian science site or resource that allows for an older earth. If that is the case I would look at these sites. http://oldearthcreationism.blogspot.com/ http://www.reasons.org/ http://www.answersincreation.org/index.htm I have not looked closely at these sights. I just bookmarked them so that I could do more research on this subject. Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingChris Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 If you are looking for a source that refutes evolution but not by young earth measures, I would look at Intelligence Design sites. One book that mya help you is Darwin's Black Box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlockOfSillies Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Hugh Ross from Reasons to Believe has some books where he summarizes the major theories. If you need more info, pm me and I can look up the books I have and give you the correct title. (Running off to do extra errands today.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbgrace Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 (edited) http://www.reasons.org/evolution/cambrian-explosion Here are the Hugh Ross/Reasons to believe articles on evolution. They take a scientific creationism approach. It's old earth among other things. But I think the links they have will be most helpful in finding ways to refute evolution (macro) and support creation that don't contradict science. Edited October 6, 2009 by sbgrace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holly IN Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Very interesting!! DS also has a Creation vs. Evolution (from a Creationist point of view) paper due next Thursday in his Worldview class. This thread is very interesting. Holly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidsHappen Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Can I add my personal favorite evolutionary theory....always laughed at, but I adore it.... The Aquatic Ape Theory. I am a strange person though. :D Also, we are obsessed with fractals in our house... that seems to explain a certain amount of evolutionary cohesiveness to me, but your assignment is to "debunk" not explore. oh well. I ove the aquatic ape theory. I have all of Elaine Morgan's books. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidsHappen Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 He is going to have to play devil's advocate on this. It is standard practice on debate teams to argue against your own POV. Some books to get him started are: Darwin's Black Box Of Pandas and People Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton. The last book attacks evolution from a strictly scientific secular point of view and may be helpful. Unfortunately, all the books have been debunked but he could argue as if they had not. Another option is to find some of the legitimate questions that we still have not answered regarding evolution and then use a wedge to pry open those cracks. Think more along legal lines of reasonable doubt that trying to difinitely disprove. Oh, and good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 One would also write about a pre-Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis put forward by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (Lamarckism) that held that acquired traits could be passed to offspring. So an animal, by this theory, who stretched her neck to reach (and eat) leaves could have longer necked children. And eventually you get giraffes. Or that a body-builder (because he worked out) will have stronger kids as a result. This hypothesis was largely disproved, but if memory serves, there have been some recent studies with insects that show if a "mother" insect is startled she can release chemicals that will "turn on" genes in future off-spring that change their fight-flight responses to danger stimuli. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.