Speaking of resources that refute evolution...

[WishboneDawn]

 

 

I'm with you on believing a well-educated student should have considerable exposure to Classical mythology, Jewish and Christian mythology, and ideally the mythology of other cultures (Norse, Hindu, etc).

 

But the problem, as I see it, with Bible classes in public schools is that it leaves a pretty big opportunity for a teacher to get carried away with his or her own agenda. It would be nice if it could be done professionally, but I wonder how that works in reality. Same with students. I know my wife had a "Bible as Literature" class in college and it was disrupted by students who attempted to use the class as an evangelizing opportunity. It got so bad evidently that some students were ejected from the class. So I dunno.

 

Bill

 

Teachers getting carried away with their own agenda can happen with any subject. Certainly that comes up in science classes.where evolution isn't taught or is taught beside creationism. There's a current thread on what peoe here were taught about evolution that has examples of that.

[Shahrazad]

So, honestly, I have to admit my own confusion. Until reading these two evolution threads I thought that a big part of the theory of evolution was a) the belief that humans evolved from monkeys and B) the belief that we spontaneously came into existence and eventually crawled forth from the primordial ooze as little (non-human) creatures that evolved over time into humans (is this abiogenesis?). Now, reading the threads I see that a has been debunked (instead with the belief we share a common ancestor?) and B) is not considered to be included in the theory of evolution and scientifically this is still seen as an area of dispute, more so than what the people on these threads are saying is the 'fact of Evolution'.

 

So, if you take these 2 factors out of it, can someone just clarify to me what exactly (aside from the young earth/old earth thing, just in terms of evolution) is the problem with this from a religious perspective (any religion)? Because I have always believed in microevolution but not macroevolution (due to my understanding of macroevolution encompassing the aforementined) as has been discussed upthread but if you guys are saying that macroevolution isn't monkeys = humans, then what exactly is the dispute over? I'm not questioning that there is a difference, I'm just a bit lost as to what the points of dispute are and I can't figure out which topics are most problematic from the posts here.

 

BTW, I should add that I went to public school and we were never taught much (if anything) about evolution (or creationism), it was just left undiscussed. This was recent as I graduated high school within the last 10 years. DH knows a lot more about this subject than me because he had to take a course in uni for his degree that was specifically on evolution but I haven't had the chance to discuss with him.

[WishboneDawn]

Nope. The other side is asking folks to properly inform themselves about the theory of creation (but if you don't want "a" creator, choose intelligent design instead - I know folks in that category too), what it is, what the evidence is in favor and what sort of discoveries could break the most current understanding. That could be done in one weekend by reading a recently printed book or two. Disagree with it if you like, but disagree with the right thing. ;)

 

What you are thinking about is 6 days and a garden. That part - for those who believe it - is faith alone. No one need subscribe to faith unless they feel called to it.

 

And nope. :D

 

I am rarely referred to anything even approaching a scientific theory regarding creationism; YE, OE or whatever. I am usually referred to books and sites that attempt to discredit bits of evidence for evolution or make arguments related to faith. I have not seen a source that provides a scientific theory, an explanation for the large body of evidence we currently have, of creationism.

 

I don't expect a theory because I've rarely seen creationists sources that actually abided by the scientific meaning of theory

 

[nmoira]

Nope. The other side is asking folks to properly inform themselves about the theory of creation (but if you don't want "a" creator, choose intelligent design instead - I know folks in that category too), what it is, what the evidence is in favor and what sort of discoveries could break the most current understanding. That could be done in one weekend by reading a recently printed book or two. Disagree with it if you like, but disagree with the right thing. ;)

 

What you are thinking about is 6 days and a garden. That part - for those who believe it - is faith alone. No one need subscribe to faith unless they feel called to it.

 

 

Why should I spend my weekend reading up on intelligent design? There are people who believe in a hollow Earth. Should I read up on it? Aliens? Ghosts? Astrology? At what point can I say it's not worth my time? Intelligent design is meaningless without a creator, and that's the problem with the proposed alternate "theories" to evolution -- they all come down to faith.

 

Since Darwin, discoveries in diverse fields, some far away from biology, support the theory of evolution. Has the theory been refined? Of course -- Darwin was born over 200 years ago and he never professed to be infallible. :D If one is bound up in a faith that is at least partially predicated on the fact that "Darwin was wrong," I can understand the willful denial of the almost relentless stream of supporting evidence over the last century. But there's really not some lab-coated cabal out there trying to keep "anti-Darwinists" down -- the anti-Darwinists don't have the goods to knock out the theory of evolution. And has been said in this and similar threads, many (most?) people of faith don't find evolutionary theory to be incompatible with it.

[creekland]

And nope. :D

 

I am rarely referred to anything even approaching a scientific theory regarding creationism; YE, OE or whatever. I am usually referred to books and sites that attempt to discredit bits of evidence for evolution or make arguments related to faith. I have not seen a source that provides a scientific theory, an explanation for the large body of evidence we currently have, of creationism.

 

I don't expect a theory because I've rarely seen creationists sources that actually abided by the scientific meaning of theory

 

 

A quick google search of Intelligent Design books gave me some I think would do the trick if I were interested in reading them for a true understanding of their side. YMMV.

 

Why should I spend my weekend reading up on intelligent design? There are people who believe in a hollow Earth. Should I read up on it? Aliens? Ghosts? Astrology? At what point can I say it's not worth my time? Intelligent design is meaningless without a creator, and that's the problem with the proposed alternate "theories" to evolution -- they all come down to faith.

 

 

All true, of course, and only you can decide what's worth your time or not. But... again, I wouldn't expect a true knowledge of the other side to come about without reading from someone who did believe in it. When we read books about other religions, I never expected my kids to end up believing in them (and they didn't). We did it for the education - so they would be well-informed. It was worth it to us. It's not for everyone. I wouldn't expect my kids to engage anyone in a "religion" discussion without a good understanding of what they were talking about - we've seen that happen on here and in real life and never a good thing. It's the same with this (for me).

[Haiku]

 

But for those who are convinced there "is" only one side, then limit your kids and teach just that. I think it's wrong, but do as you see fit.

 

Why would I waste my time teaching kids something that I know to be wrong? You know, there are people out there who are AIDS denialists. I don't waste my time teaching my kids to consider their wrong ideas. I give my kids factual information about HIV and move on. There are two (or more) sides to just about everything. A lot of people believe things that simply aren't true. For the most part, we don't spend time examining untrue beliefs. (And I post this without regard to the debate here; the idea that we don't have to make sure our kids are well grounded in others' wrong beliefs is an across-the-board thing.)

 

Tara

[Rosie_0801]

 

Nope. The other side is asking folks to properly inform themselves about the theory of creation (but if you don't want "a" creator, choose intelligent design instead - I know folks in that category too), what it is, what the evidence is in favor and what sort of discoveries could break the most current understanding. That could be done in one weekend by reading a recently printed book or two. Disagree with it if you like, but disagree with the right thing. ;)

 

More than one book, I should think. There are a lot of creation stories around. To accept any of them, I'd have to be open to belief in their deities whom I haven't met, can't be replicated in laboratories or dug up out of the earth and looked at. I can't imagine how to find validity in any form of creationism if I don't believe in their deity, beyond a claim that some deity or other kick started the Big Bang. In that case, that guess is as good as any. Also, like others have mentioned, I haven't seen a theory of creation outside religious texts that does anything other than poke holes in outdated versions of the theory of evolution, poke holes in misinterpreted versions of the theory of evolution, interpret science in ways I can't make sense of or disbelieve in dating methods, though I haven't seen any good reason why.

[WishboneDawn]

 

 

A quick google search of Intelligent Design books gave me some I think would do the trick if I were interested in reading them for a true understanding of their side. YMMV.

 

 

Understanding creationism means understanding the roots of modern fundamentalism in the reaction to textual criticism of the Bible, social justice concerns early in the last century and the consolidation of many Baptist churches into the SBC in the 1970's...and more. At it's heart creationism is a religious and, of late, political movement despite all the sciency stuff that gets tacked on to it. You won't gain a real understanding of it if you read every creation science book out there.

 

[Free]

I can see this - and it's what is often seen when "basic" debates happen - from both sides. Many people end up just parroting what they've heard or read without really knowing what it's based upon.

 

I actually put a lot of thought into my posts, and I see that you have dismissed them offhand as being merely parroted responses not based on understanding. Oh well, :001_cool: no worries.

 

I can assure you though, that I come into this discussion with an open enough mind to examine all view points honestly. I would be happy to have faults in my reasoning pointed out so that I can correct them.

 

The only thing "I" can't believe is that it all happened by chance. I just see no evidence or probability for that.

I find this a curious statement for someone who accepts microevolution and speciation. Scientifically the drivers for these are the same as for macroevolution, viz, mutation and selection. What then makes macroevolution predicated more on chance than microevolution?

 

Or else, do you believe that there is an invisible guiding hand in the microevolutionary process that cannot be detected or measured through empirical methods? If so, then what stops this belief to extend to macroevolution?

[Free]

So, if you take these 2 factors out of it, can someone just clarify to me what exactly (aside from the young earth/old earth thing, just in terms of evolution) is the problem with this from a religious perspective (any religion)?

 

Many religions have no problem with the theory of evolution.

[JDoe]

So, honestly, I have to admit my own confusion. Until reading these two evolution threads I thought that a big part of the theory of evolution was a) the belief that humans evolved from monkeys and B) the belief that we spontaneously came into existence and eventually crawled forth from the primordial ooze as little (non-human) creatures that evolved over time into humans (is this abiogenesis?). Now, reading the threads I see that a has been debunked (instead with the belief we share a common ancestor?) and B) is not considered to be included in the theory of evolution and scientifically this is still seen as an area of dispute, more so than what the people on these threads are saying is the 'fact of Evolution'.

 

So, if you take these 2 factors out of it, can someone just clarify to me what exactly (aside from the young earth/old earth thing, just in terms of evolution) is the problem with this from a religious perspective (any religion)? Because I have always believed in microevolution but not macroevolution (due to my understanding of macroevolution encompassing the aforementined) as has been discussed upthread but if you guys are saying that macroevolution isn't monkeys = humans, then what exactly is the dispute over? I'm not questioning that there is a difference, I'm just a bit lost as to what the points of dispute are and I can't figure out which topics are most problematic from the posts here.

 

BTW, I should add that I went to public school and we were never taught much (if anything) about evolution (or creationism), it was just left undiscussed. This was recent as I graduated high school within the last 10 years. DH knows a lot more about this subject than me because he had to take a course in uni for his degree that was specifically on evolution but I haven't had the chance to discuss with him.

Maybe this can help:

 

The difference between what you call micro and macro is the difference between hypothesis and theory. When Darwin first suggested that organisms adapt to environment that was no more than a hypothesis, it had not been proven correct, as no prediction whatsoever had been made.

 

Once those E.Coli bacteria evolved in the direction predicted the hypothesis was proven and became a theory.

 

The monkey to man proposal is as of yet ONLY a hypothesis, and will remain a hypothesis until someone puts some monkeys into conditions where they will eventually evolve into man. (Unless someone comes up with a different method of proof).

 

Now, before the JUST a hypothesis is dismissed, it should be mentioned that ALL scientific evidence support this hypothesis, indeed if any evidence came to light that contradicted the hypothesis would be rejected or modified.

 

On the other hand, the Adam and Eve - hypothesis does NOT qualify as a scientific hypothesis since there is scientific evidence that directly contradicts such a theory, and that the case with many of the different creationist hypothesizes. Though some seem to restrict themselves to pointing out deficiencies (or gaps) in the current monkey-to-man and these cannot in my view be dismissed out of hand just because the criticism comes from folks that believe that God created all there is. What cannot possibly be dismissed is a stance whereby god(s) acts through the laws of nature (or indeed wrote these laws), that god(s) are nature/being, or that god(s) set off the big bang and then left. (Given the state of understanding of the Big Bang, most ateist scientist might be persuaded to the latter one)

 

I see no conceptual difficulty in compatibility between evolution (both theory and hypothesis) and religion, however I understand there CAN be direct contradiction with a literal reading of scriptures which would lead to a need to choose between believing in science or a literal reading of holy texts. I suspect this is the main root of the "conflict".

 

PS. It should be noted that I think (I am not certain about this) some religious folks take their beliefs (faith) as "Truths" in the above scheme of things, and thus when these "Truths" come into conflict with any scientific theory it is naturally the scientific theory that is rejected as it is less certain than the truth as one may perceive it through religion. I too accept Truth as a higher order, and to a certain extent it is also founded on beliefs, such as the belief that 1+1=2, that I really have no proof of being true. It is at this level of the "Truths" that the similarities between Scientists and Religious folks does not cease to amaze me. As I have said earlier, most religious know that they believe, while most scientist believe that they know. :)

[PachiSusan]

 

I see no conceptual difficulty in compatibility between evolution (both theory and hypothesis) and religion, however I understand there CAN be direct contradiction with a literal reading of scriptures which would lead to a need to choose between believing in science or a literal reading of holy texts. I suspect this is the main root of the "conflict".

 

I completely agree with you. I have no conflict with believing in a Creator and accepting scientific findings. :)

[Shahrazad]

Thank you for that explanation, that definitely clears it up greatly for me. I'm not Christian but our religious texts reference the idea of the 'big bang' in relation to the creation of the universe by God so like you, I don't see them as mutually exclusive :).

[JDoe]

Thank you for that explanation, that definitely clears it up greatly for me. I'm not Christian but our religious texts reference the idea of the 'big bang' in relation to the creation of the universe by God so like you, I don't see them as mutually exclusive :).

Happy to maybe have helped a little.

 

Full disclosure: I find any concept of any gods unlikely, maybe except the "god as being/nature" of the stoics or the "Big Bang and Goodbye" conceptions which I am a little more uncertain about, however gods cannot in any way be ruled out by science (but science may change the shape and form of religion from time to time).

[PachiSusan]

Happy to maybe have helped a little.

 

Full disclosure: I find any concept of any gods unlikely, maybe except the "god as being/nature" of the stoics or the "Big Bang and Goodbye" conceptions which I am a little more uncertain about, however gods cannot in any way be ruled out by science (but science may change the shape and form of religion from time to time).

 

Many people feel that way about God. I don't think science can or should say anything about God.

[Free]

The difference between what you call micro and macro is the difference between hypothesis and theory. When Darwin first suggested that organisms adapt to environment that was no more than a hypothesis, it had not been proven correct, as no prediction whatsoever had been made.

 

Darwin spent years and years collecting evidence from disparate fields and sources before publishing his theory. A Hypothesis is a testable idea. One does not seek to "prove" a hypothesis, but to test it rigorously, which Darwin did.

 

The monkey to man proposal is as of yet ONLY a hypothesis, and will remain a hypothesis until someone puts some monkeys into conditions where they will eventually evolve into man. (Unless someone comes up with a different method of proof).

 

When I was in 8th grade, I once stood up in class and asked my teacher if all the chimpanzees in zoos would eventually evolve into humans. Whatever response my teacher gave was drowned out in the din of the collective guffaw that my class broke into - not because they understood evolution better than me, but because they were, well, a bunch of 13 year olds looking for a reason to be distracted.

 

Now, as an adult, with a little bit more knowledge of the theory, I can point out, that the question in itself, revealed at least three flaws, if not more, in my basic understanding of the evolutionary theory, viz,:

1. Chimpanzees are not direct ancestors of humans. We share a common ancestor.

2. Populations evolve, not individuals.

But perhaps, more pertinent to this discussion,

3. Evolution is not directional. The evolutionary theory makes no predictions about what shape adaptations will take. It will not tell you that if you put monkeys under controlled conditions, humans will be the eventual result.

 

Such a prediction in fact seems to me to be the domain of certain anthropocentric belief systems.

[Mandy in TN]

Intelligent Design is not an answer to how life came to be. What I mean is that if someone gives me a yummy cookie and I ask for the recipe, telling me it was designed by Smith is not an answer. I want the recipe. If you tell me God or aliens designed the life forms on earth, that doesn't tell me how it was done. I am asking what happened and not if there happened to be a guiding force behind the process. Who knows perhaps someday our history books will state that on x date our planet was seeded with life by aliens from y, but that is not science. ;) Our science texts will tell us how they did it.

 

However, I still have zero desire for there to be any more government oversight of homeschooling in the state of TN.

Mandy

[JDoe]

Darwin spent years and years collecting evidence from disparate fields and sources before publishing his theory. A Hypothesis is a testable idea. One does not seek to "prove" a hypothesis, but to test it rigorously, which Darwin did.

 

 

I think we agree about the concepts, though not about the actual labels that should be used for what Darwin published.

 

 

• • Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their inheritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (inference).

  • This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species (inference).

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species#Summary_of_Darwin.27s_theory

 

To me the above constitute a testable hypothesis, not a theory, based on plenty of "Data, observations and evidence" collected by Darwin.

 

It does make a testable prediction of that over time a new species that is BETTER adapted to the environment will form. This HAS been confirmed in the E.Coli experiment, hence we can talk of a scientific theory of evolution.

 

That what he published was "just" a scientific hypothesis does in no way detract from his achievement, even more so since his hypothesis has been proved correct, and can now undoubtedly be called a scientific theory.

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be ascientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_hypothesis

 

 

 

....

3. Evolution is not directional. The evolutionary theory makes no predictions about what shape adaptations will take. It will not tell you that if you put monkeys under controlled conditions, humans will be the eventual result.

 

Such a prediction in fact seems to me to be the domain of certain anthropocentric belief systems.

 

 

I totally and completely disagree. Indeed if evolutionary theory made NO predictions it would not be worthy of the name science.

 

There is a pretty huge difference between making predictions about the direction that evolution is likely to take (See the E.Coli experiment) in a controlled setting, and extending that to specific traits that will develop over millions of years in an uncontrolled environment. Further, if you cannot make any predictions as to what WILL happen (as opposed to the somewhat easier predictions about what already have happened) then you essentially are leaving scientific method and adopting the historical method ...

http://en.wikipedia....storical_method

 

... and you move into Paleontology, which Wikipedia pretty accurately describes thus (notice quotation marks):

As a "historical science" it attempts to explain causes rather than conduct experiments to observe effects.

https://en.wikipedia.../Paleontologist

 

It should however be noted that history IS a field of knowledge that most feel worthy of some study, even if it is not science. Though, several have tried to make it into a Science, notably Hegel and Marx, their success has been "mixed".

 

 

There is though an argument to be had that predictions of discovery of new knowledge about the past are valid as tests for a scientific hypothesis, this is an argument that has the obvious appeal of making Darwin's ideas testable. I am still on the fence on that one.

 

Finally, just a reminder of what a forcast is (which I think relevant):

A prediction (Latin præ-, "before," and dicere, "to say") or forecast is a statement about the way things will happen in the future, often but not always based on experience or knowledge. While there is much overlap between prediction and forecast, a prediction may be a statement that some outcome is expected, while a forecast is more specific, and may cover a range of possible outcomes.

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Prediction

[JDoe]

Unable to edit the above post so just note that towards the end where it says "making Darwin's ideas testable" it should read "making the monkey to man hypothesis testable"

[Free]

To me the above constitute a testable hypothesis, not a theory, based on plenty of "Data, observations and evidence" collected by Darwin.

 

It would be futile to argue whether what Darwin proposed was a hypothesis or a theory. The word theory implies that the idea has not just a broad explanatory power for a number of phenomena, but also widespread acceptance in the scientific community. I readily agree that when Darwin proposed his theory of natural selection and common descent, it did not have the broad acceptance and appeal of a well tested scientific theory. He had no understanding of how inheritance worked. Neither Genetics nor Plate tectonics had as yet been discovered.

 

On the other hand, the word "hypothesis" suggests to me that an explanation has been suggested, but no tests have been made to verify the hypothesis. I was merely clarifying that Darwin did not just observe, collect data and suggest an explanation. He made predictions, did various experiments and tested his hypothesis for almost two decades before finally publishing Origin.

 

I totally and completely disagree. Indeed if evolutionary theory made NO predictions it would not be worthy of the name science.

 

I did not say evolutionary theory made no predictions, only that it made no predictions of what shape adaptations will take in organisms.

 

There is a pretty huge difference between making predictions about the direction that evolution is likely to take (See the E.Coli experiment) in a controlled setting, and extending that to specific traits that will develop over millions of years in an uncontrolled environment.

 

I am lost as to the point you are trying to make here. Hypothetically speaking, if you put "lactose intolerant" E.Coli in 10 different beakers of lactose rich medium, you could predict that over several generations you should be able to see at least a couple of beakers of E.Coli adapt and thrive. But chances are that the mutations and chemical pathways that have arisen in these different strains of E.Coli enabling them to synthesize lactose better, are completely different from each other.

 

I am not sure though how this connects to your idea that the theory of human evolution can be tested by putting monkeys in conditions and watching them evolve into humans. What is to stop these monkeys from evolving into a completely novel species altogether?

[Matryoshka]

I am not sure though how this connects to your idea that the theory of human evolution can be tested by putting monkeys in conditions and watching them evolve into humans. What is to stop these monkeys from evolving into a completely novel species altogether?

 

 

I would further posit that based on what we know of evolutionary theory, it would predict that they would definitely not turn into humans. If somehow a bunch of monkeys or even apes (neither of which are the ancestors of humans in the first place; we share a common ancestor), were put into the exact environmental and selective conditions over time in which humans arose (which would take millions of years, so good luck with that longitudinal study), you would not get humans. You might get a creature that fills the same niche in the environmental structure. It might walk upright and be bipedal. It might even have a larger brain and use tools. It would not be human. Convergent evolution shows us that different organisms will adapt in similar ways to fill similar niches in the environment - that's why dolphins share many attributes with fish, or there are marsupials in Australia that look a lot like the placental mammals that evolved into similar niches in other parts of the world. But they do not become the same animal, and since mutation is random and evolution is not directional, it's pretty much a guarantee that the paths they take to get there will be different.

 

Even in modern humans, the mutations that led to lactose tolerance by the various populations that domesticated bovines were different in each isolated population that did so. All developed lactose tolerance, but by different genetic mutations.

[Leonana]

Well, I think the partial list I posted earlier explains just how the government can effectively run schools for the general population at the expense of the tax-payers (the community), rather than education being dependent upon financial means (private only). Ultimately, however, you don't have to agree they should have any hand in the private/homeschool sector. The conversation will happen anyway, and it will include those who do not have children in homeschool, but who recognize the value of education on society in general.

 

 

I have no problem with eliminating inaccurate education, and would be more than happy to see YEC education disappear. However, as a relaxed homeschooler, bordering on unschooling, I wonder how government interference would affect my freedom in following those methods.

 

One difference is in what constitutes as evidence, and the critical analysis that follows. Religious faith allows for personal experience to be considered evidence, and the critical analysis that follows is understood to be legitimate based on factors inadmissible in the scientific method because of its subjective nature. Your example of having faith in a surgeon can be corroborated (or not) based on objective data - his/her history, education, experience, success rate, etc. Your faith that what you've heard about God being true (ie, Jesus was/is god-man who can change reality by sheer will) simply cannot be corroborated. It's reasons like this some people do not agree science and faith are not opposites. Fundamentally, they start with different premises, and they go in different directions immediately.

 

 

Although, when it comes to age of the earth, I do have to accept it on faith. I accept the findings of the majority of scientists, because I find that more logical. Also, I find it more logical to accept some science on faith, because of the science I can verify through other methods. However, unless you are a scientific expert in that field, you have to accept some science on faith.

[JDoe]

I am not sure though how this connects to your idea that the theory of human evolution can be tested by putting monkeys in conditions and watching them evolve into humans. What is to stop these monkeys from evolving into a completely novel species altogether?

 

IF one assumes that the monkey-to-human explanation to be a scientific theory, it follows that it MUST provide a prediction AND be testable.

 

Insofar as I see things the ONLY experiment that would prove the monkey-to-human explanation to be a scientific theory, is one where you actually make the prediction that monkeys WILL evolve into humans under certain conditions, and then test that statement.

 

If the monkeys evolve into a completely different species, the monkey-to-human explanation has been discarded as a scientific theory. (That it might still be a historical fact is another matter entirely, not a scientific necessity, but an accident in time).

 

Nobody claims that there is any scientific theory that explains why the Civil War occurred, and the fact that it DID occur is but an historical accident, not a proof of any scientific theory you might now propose that takes slavery, tariffs, Lincoln, etc as inputs and predicts the Civil War as output.

[Matryoshka]

 

IF one assumes that the monkey-to-human explanation to be a scientific theory, it follows that it MUST provide a prediction AND be testable.

 

Insofar as I see things the ONLY experiment that would prove the monkey-to-human explanation to be a scientific theory, is one where you actually make the prediction that monkeys WILL evolve into humans under certain conditions, and then test that statement.

 

 

 

Um, the Theory of Evolution nowhere predicts that monkeys will turn into humans, nor that any organism will change into any other specific organism. If it did, that argument may have some merit, but it doesn't. Nowhere, not ever, no one, has posited that as part of ToE. That is the old straw man again.

 

The prediction ToE makes is that organisms will adapt to their environment and change over generations through natural selection. When we examine the fossil record, we can see that an ape-like ancestor (not a monkey!) over time appears to have evolved into modern humans. The same ancestor also evolved into two different species of chimpanzees. It also evolved into Neanderthals, which have since died out. It adapted differently in different places because of different environmental stresses. Evolution is not directional. But that is not a prediction; that is examining what has already happened, which bolsters the Theory of Evolution because there was adaptation and change over time. If there is a hypothesis to be tested looking backwards, it would be "we should see organisms adapting and changing over time in response to a changing environment," but it would not be specific about what adapts and changes into what; that is a matter of observation and examination. We don't predict the past, we examine it.

[PachiSusan]

Ok - now I really need a score card. Wasn't Joe arguing against the monkey to man? Now he's arguing for? Am I losing it? (Don't answer that....)

 

Who's on first?

[Matryoshka]

Ok - now I really need a score card. Wasn't Joe arguing against the monkey to man? Now he's arguing for? Am I losing it? (Don't answer that....)

 

Who's on first?

 

 

:lol: I have been enjoying Joe's arguments, but I too have had a really hard time figuring out which side he's arguing for. Maybe both? Maybe he should change his screen name to "Devil's Advocate." ;)

 

Btw, do we know it's Joe and not Jane? Did I miss a post?

[Mandy in TN]

That post by JDoe is so wrong on so much that I can't decide what to say. lol

 

 

[Free]

IF one assumes that the monkey-to-human explanation to be a scientific theory, it follows that it MUST provide a prediction AND be testable.

 

Yes. Just two examples of predictions made with respect to human evolution:

1. Darwin predicted that humans first evolved in Africa based on the varieties of great apes found in Africa. Current fossil finds, as well as genetic mapping of the human genome confirms this prediction.

2. All apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, whereas humans have 23. Scientists predicted that either the common ancestor had 24 pairs and humans carry a fused chromosome, or the common ancestor had 23 pairs and the apes carry split chromosomes. Research proved the first prediction to be true - humans carry a fused chromosome.

http://en.wikipedia....osome_2_(human)

 

There may be more examples, these are the two that I am aware of.

 

Insofar as I see things the ONLY experiment that would prove the monkey-to-human explanation to be a scientific theory, is one where you actually make the prediction that monkeys WILL evolve into humans under certain conditions, and then test that statement.

 

If the monkeys evolve into a completely different species, the monkey-to-human explanation has been discarded as a scientific theory. (That it might still be a historical fact is another matter entirely, not a scientific necessity, but an accident in time).

 

A prediction has to follow from the fundamental tenets of a theory. If I hypothesize that leaves produce food because they are green and then proceed to test this by putting all green things under the sun, then I am missing some key pieces in my understanding of photosynthesis.

 

The evolutionary theory does not propose that monkeys will someday evolve into humans. That seems to be something you have made up in your head based on misunderstanding what the theory actually says.

 

Nobody claims that there is any scientific theory that explains why the Civil War occurred, and the fact that it DID occur is but an historical accident, not a proof of any scientific theory you might now propose that takes slavery, tariffs, Lincoln, etc as inputs and predicts the Civil War as output.

I would be interested to know what according to you is a Scientific theory and what do you mean by scientific predictions?

[JDoe]

Um, the Theory of Evolution nowhere predicts that monkeys will turn into humans, nor that any organism will change into any other specific organism. If it did, that argument may have some merit, but it doesn't. Nowhere, not ever, no one, has posited that as part of ToE. That is the old straw man again.

 

No, but some claims are made to the effect that humans evolved from apes, which may be an historical fact, but it would not qualify as scientific theory.

 

The prediction ToE makes is that organisms will adapt to their environment and change over generations through natural selection. When we examine the fossil record, we can see that an ape-like ancestor (not a monkey!) over time appears to have evolved into modern humans. The same ancestor also evolved into two different species of chimpanzees. It also evolved into Neanderthals, which have since died out. It adapted differently in different places because of different environmental stresses. Evolution is not directional. But that is not a prediction; that is examining what has already happened, which bolsters the Theory of Evolution because there was adaptation and change over time. If there is a hypothesis to be tested looking backwards, it would be "we should see organisms adapting and changing over time in response to a changing environment," but it would not be specific about what adapts and changes into what; that is a matter of observation and examination. We don't predict the past, we examine it.

 

Actually, about the only thing that evolution, as a scientific theory, has been proved to be is directional, so your claim that evolution is NOT directional leaves me a little puzzled.

 

When you examine the past you have no prediction, when you have no prediction, you have no science. :crying:

[JDoe]

Ok - now I really need a score card. Wasn't Joe arguing against the monkey to man? Now he's arguing for? Am I losing it? (Don't answer that....)

 

One issue is what qualifies as science, and what does not. A different issue is what is true, and what is not.

 

I am variously arguing for, or against both of your positions, depending your specific claims.

[JDoe]

Yes. Just two examples of predictions made with respect to human evolution:

1. Darwin predicted that humans first evolved in Africa based on the varieties of great apes found in Africa. Current fossil finds, as well as genetic mapping of the human genome confirms this prediction.

2. All apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, whereas humans have 23. Scientists predicted that either the common ancestor had 24 pairs and humans carry a fused chromosome, or the common ancestor had 23 pairs and the apes carry split chromosomes. Research proved the first prediction to be true - humans carry a fused chromosome.

http://en.wikipedia....osome_2_(human)

 

There may be more examples, these are the two that I am aware of.

 

Unless Darwin lived before the first human evolved, he could not possibly have PREDICTED either of those things.

 

 

A prediction has to follow from the fundamental tenets of a theory. If I hypothesize that leaves produce food because they are green and then proceed to test this by putting all green things under the sun, then I am missing some key pieces in my understanding of photosynthesis.

Actually not, you are testing your hypothesis that greenness produces food, and finding that it is not. Hypothesis must be discarded or modified. That is how science proceeds.

 

The evolutionary theory does not propose that monkeys will someday evolve into humans. That seems to be something you have made up in your head based on misunderstanding what the theory actually says.

That seems to be something you have made up in your head based on misunderstanding what I actually have said thus far. :confused1:

 

I would be interested to know what according to you is a Scientific theory and what do you mean by scientific predictions?

 

Wikipedia has some rather good entries on those aspects that I have linked to at times. Have a peek, then you can tell me what you disagree with.

[JDoe]

That post by JDoe is so wrong on so much that I can't decide what to say. lol

 

 

Please entertain us all, I too need a LOL today.

[Corraleno]

No, but some claims are made to the effect that humans evolved from apes, which may be an historical fact, but it would not qualify as scientific theory.

NO ONE thinks that humans evolved from apes. NO. ONE. The theory of evolution says that humans and apes have a common ancestor — this common ancestor was not an ape or a monkey.

 

Actually, about the only thing that evolution, as a scientific theory, has been proved to be is directional, so your claim that evolution is NOT directional leaves me a little puzzled.

 

I do not think that word means what you think it means. :confused1:

Evolution does not set a goal and then set out to achieve it. The idea that evolution "intended" to eventually evolve small shrew-like mammals into humans is nonsense. Organisms evolve over time in order to adapt to and exploit their environment; this occurs because of random mutations that sometimes confer an adaptive advantage, in which case more of those organisms will survive and pass on that mutation to their offspring. When you look at the fossil and genetic evidence, you can trace the paths along which various species evolved, but evolution doesn't "direct" those paths as the species are evolving. That is why it is not "directional."

 

When you examine the past you have no prediction, when you have no prediction, you have no science. :crying:

 

Science can make predictions about what the evidence will show. That is not the same thing as predicting what will happen in the future. So they can say "if the Big Bang occurred, then we should find this evidence," and then they can look for that evidence to see if the predictions of the model are accurate. The same with evolution: if speciation occurs the way we think it does, then humans are likely to have first evolved in Africa, because that's where all of our closest primate relatives evolved. The fossil and genetic evidence does in fact fit the predictions of the model.

 

You really should read at least a basic book on evolution — and the scientific method — before you try to argue about evolution, because you really don't seem to understand even the most basic tenets of these things.

 

Jackie

[momma2three]

JDoe, a lot of what you're saying has already been covered and refuted in this thread and in the others that this thread is a spin-off from. It might be worth your while to go back and read a little bit about evolution, and what a theory is, and maybe look up what a prediction is too, because you don't really seem to understand what any of those things are or mean. It just makes it hard to have a conversation when not everyone is on the same page when it comes to vocabulary.

[Guest momtoeli]

Your use of the word "oppression" wasn't offensive to me in the least. :)

 

I would not advocate the government stepping in and dictating what and how you teach your children about the origins of life, however, I do advocate your children, and every child in the United States, to be scientifically literate, and mathematically literate, as well as the old fashioned reading and writing literate. Your religious beliefs should not be suppressed, and the government has no business suppressing it. At the same time, your child's education should not be suppressed, and schools like the one illustrated in the OP are exposing this fact to the rest of the nation in such a way as to raise some important questions. Education of children isn't only a personal matter. It affects us all, we all have a vested interest in the security and well-being of our nation to have an educated society.

 

 

You are presupposing that scientifically literate is somehow synonymous with the theory of evolution. You are certainly free to teach your children such humanistic views of our origins, however it saddens me that you are gleefully laying roadblocks ahead of them in the area of life that ultimately matters the most - their relationship with their Creator. If I were to embrace your idea that all have a vested interest in the education of all children, then I suppose I would have a duty to attempt to control what exactly you can teach YOUR children. Lucky for you I don't ascribe to the idea that it somehow takes a village, nor do I agree which theology is dooming our nation's future.

 

Now, how does that feel? Hopefully you will take a moment and consider how condescending you sound. Were I wavering at all in what I believed I would be swayed by your argument. However, I would be swayed to your opponent. If belittling another and their views is the best argument you can come up it then your theory must be greatly lacking in substance.

[Corraleno]

I don't think it is wise to teach creationism only but I think it is also ridiculous to use the theory of evolution to disprove the existence of God, which many scientists do.

 

The fact that some scientists, like Dawkins, may be vocal atheists does not mean that science is trying to "disprove the existence of God." Science cannot do that, as all scientists know. Some atheists, like Dawkins, argue that because they have not seen evidence for God, they do not believe he exists, but even Dawkins would not claim that science can disprove God. Many scientists are in fact Christians, or believers in other theistic religions, and most Christians in the world do not see a conflict between science and religion. The idea that one cannot both believe in God and accept the theory of evolution is uncommon outside of fundamentalist Protestant circles.

 

Science also has a blind spot because it assumes there is no divine.

 

Science does not assume that there is no divine. Scientists study the natural world by generating disprovable hypotheses, testing those hypotheses, and developing explanations (theories) based on the evidence they collect. The existence of God cannot be tested scientifically, so it cannot be invoked as a causal factor. Science does not say "there is no God" — science says "whether there is or isn't a God is outside the realm of science."

 

This is not a "blind spot" — it is the essence of the scientific method and what makes science science, and not religion.

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

You are presupposing that scientifically literate is somehow synonymous with the theory of evolution.

 

I'm sorry, but an understanding of the single most foundational concept in modern biology is a requirement for scientific literacy. You may choose to disbelieve it because you think it conflicts with your religion, but to not understand it at all — and by that I mean actually understand it, not read the totally false, distorted version promoted by organizations like AIG — means that one is simply not scientifically literate.

 

You are certainly free to teach your children such humanistic views of our origins, however it saddens me that you are gleefully laying roadblocks ahead of them in the area of life that ultimately matters the most - their relationship with their Creator.

 

Most Christians and other theists do not think that understanding and accepting science prevents them from having a relationship with God.

 

If belittling another and their views is the best argument you can come up it then your theory must be greatly lacking in substance.

 

 

Saying that YE Creationism is not science is not "belittling" another's views. YE Creationism is not based on scientific evidence, it distorts and falsifies evolutionary theory in order to "disprove" it, and it invokes a causal factor that is by definition outside the realm of science. It is religion, not science. It is not belittling to call religion religion, any more than it is to call a cow a cow even if someone puts a saddle on it and tries to call it a horse.

 

Jackie

[Free]

Unless Darwin lived before the first human evolved, he could not possibly have PREDICTED either of those things.

 

Others have already pointed out your non-standard use of the word prediction. A scientific prediction is simply a logical consequence should the hypothesis be true.

 

It does not necessarily have to tell you only about the future. You can also make predictions about unobserved phenomena which happened in the past. So if scientists predict the exact geological layer / geographical location where they expect to find fossils of a particular species, or if they predict existence of hitherto unknown stars or planets, those are all valid predictions.

 

From the wikipedia article you linked:

In science, a prediction is a rigorous, often quantitative, statement, forecasting what will happen under specific conditions; for example, if an apple falls from a tree it will be attracted towards the center of the earth by gravity with a specified and constant acceleration. The scientific method is built on testing statements that are logical consequences of scientific theories.

[PachiSusan]

One issue is what qualifies as science, and what does not. A different issue is what is true, and what is not.

 

I am variously arguing for, or against both of your positions, depending your specific claims.

 

I don't think I've actually claimed much of anything in this thread - but I'm still supremely confused by your recent posts...I'll just go back to my little cloud and count raindrops. :)

[JDoe]

NO ONE thinks that humans evolved from apes. NO. ONE. The theory of evolution says that humans and apes have a common ancestor — this common ancestor was not an ape or a monkey.

Nitpicking are we today?

 

I do not think that word means what you think it means. :confused1:

I know I don't mean what you think I mean

 

 

Evolution does not set a goal and then set out to achieve it. The idea that evolution "intended" to eventually evolve small shrew-like mammals into humans is nonsense. Organisms evolve over time in order to adapt to and exploit their environment; this occurs because of random mutations that sometimes confer an adaptive advantage, in which case more of those organisms will survive and pass on that mutation to their offspring. When you look at the fossil and genetic evidence, you can trace the paths along which various species evolved, but evolution doesn't "direct" those paths as the species are evolving. That is why it is not "directional."

When you hold a stone in your hand, and then let go, the stone WILL move in a certain direction. That means that law of gravity is directional, where you got the idea that for there to be a direction to something there must therefore be some intention I find a little puzzling. Would you care to enlighten us about the purported link between direction and intention?

 

 

 

 

Science can make predictions about what the evidence will show. That is not the same thing as predicting what will happen in the future. So they can say "if the Big Bang occurred, then we should find this evidence," and then they can look for that evidence to see if the predictions of the model are accurate. The same with evolution: if speciation occurs the way we think it does, then humans are likely to have first evolved in Africa, because that's where all of our closest primate relatives evolved. The fossil and genetic evidence does in fact fit the predictions of the model.

Yes, I already pointed that out several posts back. #122

 

 

 

 

You really should read at least a basic book on evolution — and the scientific method — before you try to argue about evolution, because you really don't seem to understand even the most basic tenets of these things.

 

Jackie

Hmm, and you should really try to understand what you are reading before you argue at all, otherwise you will spend all your time fighting straw men that only exist in your head. Not to mention the pointlessness of ad hominem arguments.

[JDoe]

JDoe, a lot of what you're saying has already been covered and refuted in this thread and in the others that this thread is a spin-off from.

I like the "you are wrong" but I won't tell you about what argument

 

It might be worth your while to go back and read a little bit about evolution, and what a theory is, and maybe look up what a prediction is too, because you don't really seem to understand what any of those things are or mean. It just makes it hard to have a conversation when not everyone is on the same page when it comes to vocabulary.

Funny, if you have a the impression that we have a problem with equivocation, which at times seem true, it is pretty useless to claim so without putting forward YOUR definitions, and just limit yourself to the well you don't know what the words you use mean.

 

In fact, it is impossible for me not to know what I mean with the words I use. You maybe can have difficulties in that area, but not me.

 

If you do not understand what I mean when using a word you should ask for clarification: "I understand word X to mean Y, is it in this sense you are using this word?"

[Corraleno]

Hmm, and you should really try to understand what you are reading before you argue at all, otherwise you will spend all your time fighting straw men that only exist in your head. Not to mention the pointlessness of ad hominem arguments.

 

 

I'm not fighting straw men — but clearly I have been arguing with a troll, so I'll stop wasting my time now.

 

Jackie

[JDoe]

Others have already pointed out your non-standard use of the word prediction.

If you are telling me that maintaining that prediction is saying something about the future is NON-standard, I shall be greatly amused when you provide your definition of the meaning of predict that excludes the temporal future aspect.

 

A scientific prediction is simply a logical consequence should the hypothesis be true.

OK, and how do you test it without looking at future data points?

The consequence comes before or after the causes in time?

 

It does not necessarily have to tell you only about the future. You can also make predictions about unobserved phenomena which happened in the past.

Will you do that in the past? Or is finding unobserved data points in the past a little difficult, and you are forced to look for those in the future? Otherwise suggest you reread #122, where I specifically mentioned just this same observation you here try to make.

 

So if scientists predict the exact geological layer / geographical location where they expect to find fossils of a particular species

Yes, provided the theory says that it must be so, and cannot be any other way. Albeit there are some issues about historical research even so.

 

Let me make a prediction about the past: Atlantis was a real society based somewhere in the Mediterranean and sank in the sea. Let us say that next year (that is in the future) someone discovers a sunken city in the mediterranean where one finds the inscription "Atlantis" in cuneiform script on several artifacts. Would you care to point out the science in my prediction? Accurately predicting discovery of information about the past, would here seem to be interesting, but hardly qualify as science as there seem to be lacking a certain cause and effect connection in my prediction.

 

Now, if I were to make the additional prediction that X caused Atlantis to sink, and some traces of X also is found and dated to the date of sinking I might score some points on scientific theory, but I still have a problem of replicability.

 

, or if they predict existence of hitherto unknown stars or planets, those are all valid predictions.

Indeed with this one I have absolutely no problem

 

From the wikipedia article you linked:

In science, a prediction is a rigorous, often quantitative, statement, forecasting what will happen under specific conditions; for example, if an apple falls from a tree it will be attracted towards the center of the earth by gravity with a specified and constant acceleration. The scientific method is built on testing statements that are logical consequences of scientific theories.

Forecasting what WILL happen seem to tell you about some future event, if not maybe you will care to explain away that too. Further I wonder if you would care to share exactly "what specific specific conditions" you apply to your forecasting? Or are you forecasting something without knowing what specific conditions will lead to your "logical consequences".

 

That is, given a set of conditions (cause) it follows that X,Y,Z will (or rather MUST) happen (effect) seem to be pretty well required for any scientific theory (there is also the minor issue of replicability). Can you call a situation where you do not have much, if any, knowledge about the causes, but rather a series of observations of the effects, science? If so, it would seem that history is a scientific area of knowledge, yet such a claim seems a little odd.

 

So it seems, to me, a little odd to claim that http://en.wikipedia....common_ancestor is a scientific theory when we do not know of the causes, but only have a string of observed effects.

 

 

Finally, a quick peek at Darwin

I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number.

 

Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.

 

http://www.talkorigi.../chapter14.html

 

Darwin is definitively hedging his bets, but that does not mean he is wrong (or right), but it is pretty clear that he did NOT put forward a scientific theory, at best it could be called a hypothesis.

[JDoe]

 

I'm not fighting straw men — but clearly I have been arguing with a troll, so I'll stop wasting my time now.

 

Jackie

 

 

Interesting, wonder if anyone else have managed to be labelled as a Troll by both sides of the Creation/Evolution divide before.

[Guest inoubliable]

 

Interesting, wonder if anyone else have managed to be labelled as a Troll by both sides of the Creation/Evolution divide before.

 

 

I think it's just you.

 

Congratulations.