Need sources to begin investigation of creation vs. evolution-CC

[WishboneDawn]

If there is tangible proof of evolution starting from nothing, or a single cell evolving into thousands of species, or one species involving into another, I have not seen it. Where is it? (Really, I will order the book from my library, etc.)

 

 

You won't see what you've described as proof for evolution because it's not evolution. :D

 

Life starting from nothing is abiogenesis or origin of life and we really don't have a good theory for that yet. Evolution is only what happens after life is already here and we don't need to know the origin of life to know evolution. You don't need to know how to rock started rolling to see it and understand it's rolling down a hill.

 

One cell never evolves into thousands of different species. One cell simply contributes to the creation of another cell and in that process some of the genetic information from one cell may get mutated on it's way to the other cell. That, in a badly described nutshell, is evolution and we do see that everyday. What we see on a bigger scale is the accumulation of those little mutations (with the added pressure of environmental forces that make up natural selection) that can lead to speciation. And we can also see that very clearly in the fossil record and in the study of genetics. We don't often see new species pop up true but time is needed. We don't see mountains grow but we understand the processes by which they do and don't doubt that they do because we don't see it happen.

 

I think the key thing to understand is that fundamentally, evolution is one pebble bumping into another. One generation changing slightly from the last. Big deal some say and acknowledge that that's just micro-evolution. Fine but step back and observe what happens with the pebbles. The first bumps a second and the second bumps a third and those both hit a stone and the stone rolls and hits another...Soon you have an avalanche. There's marco-evolution (BTW - I hate the micro/marco distinction. :D). Now watch the rock slide and notice how the path of some of the avalanche shifts as it encounters trees, cliffs, water, steeper or more gradual slopes. There are environmental force (natural selection) working to shape the evolution of the avalanche.

 

No one needs to accept evolution but a good understanding is helpful. My personal secret is that although I don't accept creationism my view of it opened up a lot and my appreciation of it grew when I started to try and understand the roots of it in religion and theology. There are implications there that I don't think many people who aren't creationists have an inkling of or appreciation for but I had to put aside my own arguments against it and accept it as a possibility to see them. I sort of think the same might be true for many creationists in regards to evolution.

 

I'd also love to have a discussion on creationism or ID one of these days devoid of science because I think that would be a fantasticly fun discussion.

[Peek a Boo]

All the scientists. Michael Behe's whole department signed a petition disassociating themselves from his "junk science".

 

Michael Behe himself said under oath in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:

 

"There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".

 

He admits there is NO EVIDENCE, NO SCIENCE. Intelligent Design is a sham.

 

There is a Very Big difference between something being UnScientific vs a SHAM.

 

The fact that the scientific community can't prove it is a very big difference from deciding it is FAKE.

 

Calling something they can't prove to be wrong as totally false is....unscientific. :)

Again- thanks for making the citations easy to find. :D

[Peek a Boo]

He told us on another board it was for a year, if I remember correctly.

 

very cool.

I'm watching the calendar.... :D

[Peek a Boo]

You won't see what you've described as proof for evolution because it's not evolution. :D

 

Life starting from nothing is abiogenesis or origin of life and we really don't have a good theory for that yet. Evolution is only what happens after life is already here and we don't need to know the origin of life to know evolution. You don't need to know how to rock started rolling to see it and understand it's rolling down a hill.

 

I do agree that many people mix up abiogenesis and evolution.

 

But even w/ the avalanche example, at the end of the hill, the rock has not changed.

What we see on a bigger scale is the accumulation of those little mutations (with the added pressure of environmental forces that make up natural selection) that can lead to speciation. And we can also see that very clearly in the fossil record and in the study of genetics. We don't often see new species pop up true but time is needed. We don't see mountains grow but we understand the processes by which they do and don't doubt that they do because we don't see it happen.

 

not really. There's a lot of assumptions. What we SEE is a lot of scientists assuming that those fossils they keep finding actually descended from each other. --Line them up just so and it looks great. Even the genetics looks convincing. But genetics is a very interesting animal in itself. The fossil record is very cool, but it proves very little as far as evolution is concerned.

Unless you WANT it to.

 

How mountains/rocks/crystals form is a lot different from how life replicates. Even then -- we now know that diamonds can be made in days, not mandated eons.

 

Remember that Christians/ people of faith understand Very Clearly the concept of believing that which we can't see. The not seeing the process is NOT the problem in this debate. :D

 

and again: I have no problem at the end of the day w/ God revealing that one side or the other was wrong. But i do think it important for the sake of science to realize that what scientists like Behe are railing against is something that is outside the scope OF science. They need to stick w/ calling things they can empirically disprove "junk science."

 

I always find it interesting that w/ the ToE, ANY reference to philisophical or religious views is nixed as a sham, but w/ the abortion debate, the only evidence they can bring in to disprove that the single cell human isn't necessarily a human is..... religious and bioethic controversies, lol.

[calandalsmom]

I do agree that many people mix up abiogenesis and evolution.

 

But even w/ the avalanche example, at the end of the hill, the rock has not changed.

 

 

not really. There's a lot of assumptions. What we SEE is a lot of scientists assuming that those fossils they keep finding actually descended from each other. --Line them up just so and it looks great. Even the genetics looks convincing. But genetics is a very interesting animal in itself. The fossil record is very cool, but it proves very little as far as evolution is concerned.

Unless you WANT it to.

How mountains/rocks/crystals form is a lot different from how life replicates. Even then -- we now know that diamonds can be made in days, not mandated eons.

 

Remember that Christians/ people of faith understand Very Clearly the concept of believing that which we can't see. The not seeing the process is NOT the problem in this debate. :D

 

and again: I have no problem at the end of the day w/ God revealing that one side or the other was wrong. But i do think it important for the sake of science to realize that what scientists like Behe are railing against is something that is outside the scope OF science. They need to stick w/ calling things they can empirically disprove "junk science."

 

I always find it interesting that w/ the ToE, ANY reference to philisophical or religious views is nixed as a sham, but w/ the abortion debate, the only evidence they can bring in to disprove that the single cell human isn't necessarily a human is..... religious and bioethic controversies, lol.

 

I dont think you have a good understanding of bio anthropology or science in general if that is what you see.

[Lovedtodeath]

I really want to learn more. How does a scientist decide that this bunch of fossils is a mammal, and this one was a reptile. How do they know that some of the dinosaurs weren't really big elephants, or had hair? (interesting that a mummified dinosaur was found and showed that they had been assembling the fossils incorrectly) Who really were the Neanderthals? Can someone point me to some information? I have searched the library and come up pretty dry.

[Classical Katharine]

My husband has studied this area and so I checked with him for resources. Here are his thoughts. Most of these books are geared towards helping you understand the issues yourself; by high school, students will be able to tackle some of them. [Added later: I apologize--I intended this post to reply to the OP.]

 

In his words:

 

"This list is not even complete--there are many other good books. Also, I'm going to ignore cosmological issues (where the universe came from

etc.) along with all kinds of secondary issues.

 

Positions, as I will refer to them:

* Evolutionism = any variety of materialistic (= anti-supernaturalistic) evolutionism (e.g. Richard Dawkins)

* Theistic evolutionism = belief in macroevolution as the basic story of how God created living things (e.g. Robin Collins or Hugh Ross)

* Creationism = belief in creation of all living kinds by direct divine intervention, taking place thousands of years ago (not millions or billions) (e.g. Ken Ham and Answers-in-Genesis, or Henry Morris)

* ID (Intelligent Design) = belief that there is scientific evidence of design in the biological realm (e.g. Michael Behe, Bill Dembski, Philip

Johnson)

 

Note that ID can be held by creationists and by theistic evolutionists.

(Note that there are members of both groups who are opposed to ID.) It is even held by a few evolutionists (the self-organizing cosmos people, for example), but because they are outside the mainstream of evolution, I will ignore them.

 

All of these positions fight with all the others, but the really important debates are:

(D1) ID versus evolutionism

(D2) Creationism versus evolutionism

(D3) Creationism versus theistic evolutionism

 

Start with debate D1, ignore debate D2 for the moment since there's so much overlap with D1, and then if you're interested, look into D3.

 

D1: Here's what I would read, in roughly descending order of priority:

(a) Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God (Zondervan)--interviews ID advocates and comes down in favor of ID; nice overview of ID position(s)

(b) Thomas Woodward, Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design (Baker)--a history of the ID vs. evolution war since 1996, very readable; written from a pro-ID perspective

© Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (Norton)--THE book advocating neo-Darwinian evolutionism (i.e. mainstream evolutionism); predates the ID debate, however, so it can't respond to ID arguments

(d) Jonathan Well, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? (Regnery)--a very entertaining but scholarly look at the various "poster-children" used to promote evolutionism, such as Haenkel's embryo drawings and the peppered moths; anti-evolutionist

(e) Kenneth Miller, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul (Viking)--probably the best of the recent evolutionist attacks on ID

 

The rest of my recommendations for D1 get into the deeper philosophical and historical issues, and therefore have less popular appeal:

(f) Dal Ratzsch, Science and Its Limits (IVP)--a careful and competent discussion of philosophy of science as it relates to these and other issues, from a Christian author who seems to lean away from creationism and from some ID thinking

(g) Nancy R. Pearcey and Charles B. Thaxton, The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy (Crossway)--a careful and competent discussion of the history and philosophy of science from authors who are pro-ID

(h) William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse, eds., Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA (Cambridge)--a collection of papers from leading advocates of all the major (and some non-mainstream) views; quite balanced

(i) Robert T. Pennock and Michael Ruse, eds., But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy (Prometheus)--a reasonably careful and balanced discussion from evolutionists of whether any kind of ID or creationism counts as science

 

On debate D3, I recommend:

(j) Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. & David W. Hall, eds., Did God Create in 6 Days?

(Tolle Lege Press)--a careful discussion of the biblical and theological issues that comes down in favor of literal days

(k) Hugh Ross, Creation and Time (Navpress)--Ross is probably the leading advocate of old-earth views; this book is his classic on this question, though he has written others more recently that would take into account recent debates

(l) John Hartnett, Starlight, Time and the New Physics (Creation Ministries International)--a very recent book by a physicist arguing on the basis of relativity theory for a recent creation in a short time

(m) John Byl, The Divine Challenge (Banner of Truth)--a superb overview of cosmology written from a staunchly biblical but also staunchly skeptical perspective by an astrophysicist; is as skeptical of creationist scientific theories as he is of evolutionist

 

I'm already thinking of books I shouldn't have omitted, but I'd better stop."

 

And he did!

Edited May 13, 2009 by Classical Katharine
added note that I'd meant to reply to the OP

[BikeBookBread]

* Theistic evolutionism = belief in macroevolution as the basic story of how God created living things (e.g. Robin Collins or Hugh Ross)

 

 

 

GREAT list! Thanks for that super resource! I think I understand how your husband is trying to simplify a very complicated debate, and his breakdowns are great. But I think it would not be fair to call Hugh Ross a theistic evolutionist, as Dr.Ross does not call himself a theistic evolutionist. He does believe in creation, not evolution. Check out his own words in question 1 of the FAQs.

 

Not to muddy any waters, but I think it is only fair to clarify this when people have many times labeled him as a theistic evolutionist and he has worked hard to clarify his position as not evolutionary.

[Classical Katharine]

Thanks for your comments! My husband appreciates them, too.

 

Yes, he should have called Dr. Ross a "progressive creationist," as Dr. Ross calls himself. My husband included him with the theistic evolutionists for purposes of this discussion because Dr. Ross is an old earth proponent and a proponent of the mainstream geological and paleontological timescale. So his views do differ from those of theistic evolutionists, but on the chronology issues, he can be included with the theistic evolutionists. And theologically, Dr. Ross accepts the idea of death before the fall, another way in which his position is closer to theistic evolutionists than to creationism.

 

Still, he's not exactly a theistic evolutionist, and thanks again for calling us on this one.

[Classical Katharine]

. . . is the title of a good DVD from Illustra Media on the ID movement. http://www.illustramedia.com/umolinfo.htm.

[Greta]

What we SEE is a lot of scientists assuming that those fossils they keep finding actually descended from each other. --Line them up just so and it looks great. Even the genetics looks convincing. But genetics is a very interesting animal in itself. The fossil record is very cool, but it proves very little as far as evolution is concerned.

Unless you WANT it to.

 

:confused1: Actually, to me it seems that one would have to work pretty hard to look at the fossil record and the genetic evidence and NOT see the story that is clearly told by them. That said, Darwin knew practically nothing of genetics, and very little of the fossil record, and he still managed to figure it out. So neither one of these is critical for understanding evolution. But they are so compelling that it never ceases to amaze me that people dismiss them so easily.

 

Remember that Christians/ people of faith understand Very Clearly the concept of believing that which we can't see. The not seeing the process is NOT the problem in this debate. :D

 

Hmm, I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. I've heard so many times, and it was even mentioned in this thread, variations on the argument "no one was around to see it, so you can't prove a thing." In fact, the main argument I hear from Creationists (and I grew up in the Bible belt, so believe me I know many) is an argument from personal incredulity: "I can't see/understand/imagine how this could have happened, therefore it didn't." I think that not seeing the process of evolution is a major factor for Creationists. And let's face it, it's awfully hard to see when you close your eyes. ;)

 

I always find it interesting that w/ the ToE, ANY reference to philisophical or religious views is nixed as a sham, but w/ the abortion debate, the only evidence they can bring in to disprove that the single cell human isn't necessarily a human is..... religious and bioethic controversies, lol.

 

Well, since there's something we agree on, I had to say so. Not to get off an on abortion tangeant, but just so you know I'm not picking on you. Okay, I am picking on you, but only because I know you can take it. :D Anyway, I was commenting to a friend of mine recently that I think it's one of the dirty little secrets of the pro-choice side of the debate that science comes down squarely on the pro-life side of the debate. And that realization that a purely scientific, rational case could be made against abortion without having to appeal to religious faith, was one of the things that caused my own shift in perspective on the issue.

[Blessedfamily]

And that realization that a purely scientific, rational case could be made against abortion without having to appeal to religious faith, was one of the things that caused my own shift in perspective on the issue.

 

 

:iagree:

Tangent- Before ever becoming a Christian, this was my opinion.

 

Back to your regularly scheduled program.

[Greta]

I really want to learn more. How does a scientist decide that this bunch of fossils is a mammal, and this one was a reptile. How do they know that some of the dinosaurs weren't really big elephants, or had hair? (interesting that a mummified dinosaur was found and showed that they had been assembling the fossils incorrectly) Who really were the Neanderthals? Can someone point me to some information? I have searched the library and come up pretty dry.

 

Your questions encompass a broad variety of topics. I would love to answer them myself, but, wow, I just don't have enough time (or expertise, I must admit) to even begin to do them justice. But I will be thinking about resources for you. One thing that immediately came to mind is Natural History magazine. This is a great resource. I haven't subscribed in awhile, but I think I might renew. They explore really fascinating topics and explain them very well. Identification of fossils is something that requires a pretty thorough background knowledge of comparative vertebrate anatomy. I have a textbook on this topic from way back in the day when I got my B.S. in Zoology. But that's pretty dry reading. I'll see if I can come up with something more accessible for you.

[Lovedtodeath]

Thank you Greta. I will look into the magazine and appreciate any further suggestions that you come up with. :)

[WishboneDawn]

But even w/ the avalanche example, at the end of the hill, the rock has not changed.

 

It is just a metaphor. You can only take it so far.

 

not really. There's a lot of assumptions. What we SEE is a lot of scientists assuming that those fossils they keep finding actually descended from each other. --Line them up just so and it looks great. Even the genetics looks convincing. But genetics is a very interesting animal in itself. The fossil record is very cool, but it proves very little as far as evolution is concerned.

Unless you WANT it to.

 

The implication being that fossils can be lined up just so to suit a theory? That's not what happens. Geology, the decay of elements, anatomy, etc. are all used to establish the context in which we have to consider those fossils. It's not evolution that determines what we know about the fossil record, it's those other sciences. Evolution merely offers an explanation for why that record exists. If the science around determining the fossil record was as shaky as some suggest then surely we should give up drilling for oil, nuclear power and surgery.

 

How mountains/rocks/crystals form is a lot different from how life replicates. Even then -- we now know that diamonds can be made in days, not mandated eons.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Because something is possible does not mean it has always been so or is how it always happens. Besides, do you mean how we produce artificial diamonds because I'm pretty certain Mother Nature doesn't have access to that technology. :)

 

I always find it interesting that w/ the ToE, ANY reference to philisophical or religious views is nixed as a sham, but w/ the abortion debate, the only evidence they can bring in to disprove that the single cell human isn't necessarily a human is..... religious and bioethic controversies, lol.

 

I think the philisophical or religious views should be discussed around evolution , it's just that sometimes those views are used to counter scientific arguments and that's about as helpful as using a hammer when a dishcloth is required. If you're going to counter a scientific argument then use scientific arguments. If I want to counter an argument about Plato's cave or John's metaphor of Jesus as the Light then I can't do anything but confuse and frustrate if I insist on talking about the scientific properties of light.

[Peek a Boo]

I dont think you have a good understanding of bio anthropology or science in general if that is what you see.

 

if it was just me making that statement, I might absolutely agree with you. :)

However, there are enough people that DO have a good understanding of the topic and still disagree w/ the mainstream conclusion. and again-- that's not necessarily what *I* see: I am answering in context of the OP: what do these views believe and why.

 

 

:confused1: Actually, to me it seems that one would have to work pretty hard to look at the fossil record and the genetic evidence and NOT see the story that is clearly told by them. ...But they are so compelling that it never ceases to amaze me that people dismiss them so easily.

 

because science has a long history of looking at something, deciding the obvious conclusion must be true, then finding out they were wrong. based on the HISTORY of science it seems pretty easy to consider that the "obvious' answer may indeed be very, very wrong. Or right. :)

 

 

Hmm, I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. I've heard so many times, and it was even mentioned in this thread, variations on the argument "no one was around to see it, so you can't prove a thing." ...... [/i]I think that not seeing the process of evolution is a major factor for Creationists. And let's face it, it's awfully hard to see when you close your eyes. ;)

I do agree that different people will use the "can't see it, so it didn't/can't happen" reason to backup their own perspective --both Christians and atheists. :)

 

 

it's one of the dirty little secrets of the pro-choice side of the debate that science comes down squarely on the pro-life side of the debate. And that realization that a purely scientific, rational case could be made against abortion without having to appeal to religious faith, was one of the things that caused my own shift in perspective on the issue.

 

yeah.... I am often....saddened?... when the pro-life side refuses to really embrace the scientific terminology that actually strengthens their argument in favor of the emotional appeal. Rights are not about how we feel towards another.

[WishboneDawn]

I really want to learn more. How does a scientist decide that this bunch of fossils is a mammal, and this one was a reptile. How do they know that some of the dinosaurs weren't really big elephants, or had hair? (interesting that a mummified dinosaur was found and showed that they had been assembling the fossils incorrectly) Who really were the Neanderthals? Can someone point me to some information? I have searched the library and come up pretty dry.

 

I think a lot of what you're talking about comes from our knowledge of anatomy. We have the bones of reptiles and mammals and birds today that we can study and make inferences about. A scientist can look at a bone and pelvis, note the similarity to a modern reptile and infer that they fit together in a certain way.how muscles connect to bone, how the shape of a skull can determine how an animal looks and reconstruct a best guess based on that. They also know With things like skin and hair, sometimes it's luck and they find fossilized imprints of hair or fur or feathers but usually it's more an educated guess they maek by again, comparing fossils to modern animals.

 

There IS a lot of educated guessing that goes on in building an image of some of these animals but it's important to remember the educated part. They aren't shots in the dark or wishful thinking and the same knowledge they use to make those guesses are is the same as the person who's reconstructing the face of a murder victim from a skull or surgeons use when they rebuild the limbs of accident victims. It's also subject to errors. There are a few stories of ill-constructed fossil models! Generally though as knowledge grows, errors get recognized.

 

Neaderthals? There's not a universally accepted theory about them yet. Some thing they are human ancestors, some think they evolved from an offshoot of an ancestor of modern humans and developed in parallel. National Geographic had an excellent article on them a couple of years back and I just listened to a neat radio series on them that I'll see if I can dig up for you.

[Peek a Boo]

It is just a metaphor. You can only take it so far.

 

yeah, I know. :)

 

 

The implication being that fossils can be lined up just so to suit a theory? That's not what happens. ..... If the science around determining the fossil record was as shaky as some suggest then surely we should give up drilling for oil, nuclear power and surgery.

back to my answer to calandalsmom and GretaLynne for that one.

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Because something is possible does not mean it has always been so or is how it always happens. Besides, do you mean how we produce artificial diamonds because I'm pretty certain Mother Nature doesn't have access to that technology. :)

 

I agree that Mother Nature doesn't have the gem-making machines, but those little machines do pretty much the exact same thing that Mother Nature does, just in a controlled environment. I simply look at it as proof that it doesn't HAVE to take eons to form a real OR artificial diamond. It is simply another piece of evidence.

 

 

I think the philisophical or religious views should be discussed around evolution , it's just that sometimes those views are used to counter scientific arguments and that's about as helpful as using a hammer when a dishcloth is required. If you're going to counter a scientific argument then use scientific arguments. If I want to counter an argument about Plato's cave or John's metaphor of Jesus as the Light then I can't do anything but confuse and frustrate if I insist on talking about the scientific properties of light.

 

I agree. and that brings us back to why the debate can never be settled according to the current rules of science: one side involves a Deity. That's why they have an entire branch of Creation Science that involves studying science in light of that variable.

 

Now scientists can CALL it "sham science" or "Junk science" but that would still not be an accurate portrayal of what those views are studying. Just like "bioethics" isn't a sham or junk science-- it's just a term for discussing something that has scientific AND philosophical implications. Creation Science has more in common w/ bioethics than anything else. at least, the way I see it. ;)

 

From a pure science POV, I can't allow the legitimate field of bioethics to color the rational logic of either the ToE or what makes a human a human. I find it...telling...that we have scientists signing petitions against one form of bioethics and not another.

[asta]

I was also just thinking about how people think that this or that worldview would influence kids on their way to forming their own. In my native country the only existing position thought in public schools (there were no others then, Communism, you know :glare:) on which biology stands was evolution (always described as a theory). Amazingly, it did not alter our 95% Catholic population in their faith in God as a Creator, but gave us solid scientific knowledge.

Living in USA, I constantly hear religion thrown in with this particular issue (ID, creationism, evolution, old earth, young earth, theistic evolution etc), and most of it is useless in the scientific field, if taken on other than purely scientifically sound premises. That's why I think it's so hard to go between the two fields (theology and science), taking to consideration logic and "pure" scientific findings.

 

That would be because the Roman Catholic Church believes in evolution.

 

The link is to a rather interesting one page document by the current Pope, Benedict XVI.

 

To “evolve†literally means “to unroll a scrollâ€, that is, to read a book. The imagery of nature as a book has its roots in Christianity and has been held dear by many scientists. Galileo saw nature as a book whose author is God in the same way that Scripture has God as its author. It is a book whose history, whose evolution, whose “writing†and meaning, we “read†according to the different approaches of the sciences, while all the time presupposing the foundational presence of the author who has wished to reveal himself therein. This image also helps us to understand that the world, far from originating out of chaos, resembles an ordered book; it is a cosmos. Notwithstanding elements of the irrational, chaotic and the destructive in the long processes of change in the cosmos, matter as such is “legibleâ€. It has an inbuilt “mathematicsâ€. The human mind therefore can engage not only in a “cosmography†studying measurable phenomena but also in a “cosmology†discerning the visible inner logic of the cosmos. We may not at first be able to see the harmony both of the whole and of the relations of the individual parts, or their relationship to the whole. Yet, there always remains a broad range of intelligible events, and the process is rational in that it reveals an order of evident correspondences and undeniable finalities: in the inorganic world, between microstructure and macrostructure; in the organic and animal world, between structure and function; and in the spiritual world, between knowledge of the truth and the aspiration to freedom. Experimental and philosophical inquiry gradually discovers these orders; it perceives them working to maintain themselves in being, defending themselves against imbalances, and overcoming obstacles. And thanks to the natural sciences we have greatly increased our understanding of the uniqueness of humanity’s place in the cosmos.

 

eg: that humanity was given the ability to consistently evolve to a higher place of understanding; to continually discover new things, and to grow and evolve to understand what has been discovered.

 

I found it to be a kind of neat, circular argument.

 

 

asta

[Spy Car]

My only thing is that most ID proponents are using the very same evidence and simply coming to a different conclusion --based on a different way of interpreting that data.

 

In the same way astronomers and astrologists both look at the stars and "interpret" the sky differently.

 

Astrologists look at the stars and come up with fanciful notions about the Zodiac and "Houses of Planets" ruling over peoples destinies and all sorts of other non-sense. People lap it up, but it sure ain't "science".

 

Intelligent Design has as the same degree of scientific credibility as astrology. That is to say, none. Zero. Zip. Nada.

 

Spend your precious time studying non-sense, if you choose, I've got better ways to spend mine and my child's waking hours.

 

Chemistry vs Alchemy, teach the controversy. Not!

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

Intelligent Design as a movement, as a group may not have any standing in the scientific community, but there have been scientists, biologists, astronomers, etc., who have decided some before and some after studying science and working in that field, that there indeed was (or is) an intelligent creator.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Greta]

because science has a long history of looking at something, deciding the obvious conclusion must be true, then finding out they were wrong.

 

Actually, many scientific discoveries were not considered at all obvious at the time. What seems OBVIOUS is that the earth is stationary, and the sun, stars, and planets revolve around it. The claim that it was otherwise caused quite a stir, and was not considered an "obvious conclusion" in the least, but a heretical one. It also SEEMS quite obvious that something as complex as a living organism would have to have been intentionally designed and created. But upon further investigation, that turns out simply to not be the case. I think that's exactly what science is good at: getting beyond the "obvious" and discovering the truth.

 

 

based on the HISTORY of science it seems pretty easy to consider that the "obvious' answer may indeed be very, very wrong. Or right. :)

 

Wait, hang on a sec. How do we know that scientists have been wrong? Because other scientists proved them to be, using the scientific method. So you can't fault scientists for being wrong without crediting scientists with the ability to distinguish right from wrong, which they do quite well, with the scientific method. :tongue_smilie:

 

The century and a half since Origins was published has been the age of the greatest scientific discoveries in human history. There are more scientists, more highly educated and highly trained scientists, alive today than at any point in human history. The pool of scientific knowledge upon which we can draw is greater than ever before. Scientists devoting their entire professional careers to fields as diverse as geology, anatomy, physiology, genetics, biochemistry, ethology, ecology, the list goes on, have amazingly enough found convergent evidence for evolution. In many cases, our understanding of the particulars of evolution has vastly increased. In some cases, our understanding of the particulars of evolution had to be revised. But in no case has there been any discoveries challenging the reality of evolution. If the history of science is to be your guide, then I would say that few Theories have ever had the kind of overwhelming backing by evidence and rigorous testing that Evolution has.

 

I do agree that different people will use the "can't see it, so it didn't/can't happen" reason to backup their own perspective --both Christians and atheists. :)

 

Agreed. :)

[Lovedtodeath]

Wait, hang on a sec. How do we know that scientists have been wrong? Because other scientists proved them to be, using the scientific method. So you can't fault scientists for being wrong without crediting scientists with the ability to distinguish right from wrong, which they do quite well, with the scientific method. :tongue_smilie:

 

LOL! This debate will be a no win, won't it?

[Greta]

LOL! This debate will be a no win, won't it?

 

My debates with Peek usually are! :lol:

[Kathy in MD]

I really want to learn more. How does a scientist decide that this bunch of fossils is a mammal, and this one was a reptile.

 

There are many differences between the skeletons of mammals and reptiles. In fact all the major vertabrates show major differences. An amature paleontologist would be looking primarily at the skull and dentition, the shoulder girdle and the pelvic girdle for distinguishing these two groups. Reptiles, except in very, very few cases, have only one type of tooth. It may be a grinding tooth or a meat cutting tooth, but almost always only one type. Mammals typically have several types.

 

Another major marker is at the shoulder and pelvic girdles. Reptile limbs attach to these girdles in such a way that reptiles "sprawl". They are constructed so they cannot get their limbs directly under their bodies. (exception dinosaurs, see below) Mammal limbs are connected to the girdles via ball and socket joints and as such can get their legs underneath them.

 

How do they know that some of the dinosaurs weren't really big elephants, or had hair? (interesting that a mummified dinosaur was found and showed that they had been assembling the fossils incorrectly)

 

Dinos were the one group of reptiles that could get their legs underneath themselves to stand and move in an upright position. But their limbs were joined to the body via a rod and socket (? for term accuracy, but the image is correct), not the ball and socket of the mammals. This allowed the dinos to move upright, but they didn't have the joint flexibility mammals had. I believe it also wasn't as secure a joint, but it's been many years since I studied this.

 

We actually have fossilized dino skin, which shows the typical scales found on reptiles. Imprint fossils indicate that some dinos even had feathers. But there has been no discoveries of hair on dinos. I don't know if the mammal-like reptiles had hair.

 

Paleotologists often find mistakes in earlier mounts because of new discoveries or finding out that preconcieved notions caused earlier scientists to ignore the proof of their eyes and force the fossils into this otion. For ex, 19th century scientists knew that repitiles sprawl, dios are reptiles, therefore dinos sprawl. Another cause of mount problems is that it's EXTREMELY rare to find a complete dino skeleton. So scientists will make composite skeletons from various finds. If they are missing a particular body part such as a foot, they will make an educated guess, based on size, weight and closely related dinos. Whe a new discovery reveals the missing part, the scientific record is changed, though the mounts on display to the public may not ($ problems)

 

Who really were the Neanderthals?

 

Sorry, my specialty wasn't anthropology. It was modern animals with a heavy dose of prehistoric animals, but not hominoids.

 

Can someone point me to some information? I have searched the library and come up pretty dry.

 

The best way to learn a lot of this is to handle and observe the skeletons themselves. Nature centers usually have a touch it table with a small selection of skeleton parts you can handle. Draw these and note the similarities and differences between various groups to train your eye.

 

If you come to DC, the National Museum of Natural History has the most complete collection of modern skeletons on display. (at least that's what I was told when I went through docent training). Go to the osteology hall and look for the differences between the mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibeans, and fish, focucing on the body parts I mentioned. Then go to the prehistoric halls and look for those same differences. Remember to study the mammal-like reptiles. If you can find a paleontological docent on the floor, they can show you the charateristics of the various classes much better than I ever could.

 

Another place to study this is the Naturalist's Center in Leesburg, VA. It's actually a branch of the atural History Museum, but here you're allowed to hadle the samples. It's collection isn't as wide, but it's good hands on material. (No children uder 10 are allowed in the collections.)

 

Check with your local museums if they have something similar.

 

I recommend you look at Skulls and Bones by Glenn Searfoss. This has great line drawings so you can compare the various features of of common NA mammals. It will help train your eye, so when you look at other books showing skeletons, you can really see what they're illustrating. The written info is also good.

 

Another book with artistic photos is Bones:the Unity of Form and Function by R. McNeil Alexander. It looks like a coffee table book, but don't dismiss it. There's a ton of info. And the artistic photos help you see the bones in more detail than the typical scientific photo.

 

Those these 2 books won't answer your questions directly, but they'll help you interpret the illustrations of other books, and most important, help you truly see the primary sources of paleontological work -- the fossils themselves.

 

Now for the question of the day. Why don't the cats, any species, cut themselves when they retract their claws? Go check out your friendly skeleton for the answer.

[Dirtroad]

I completed a Masters in physiology. I had absolutely no relegious alliance & no background in creation or intelligent design when attending graduate school. I was a blank slate - except for public school background.

 

My professors (in all areas) spoke of evolution as if it was proven & fact. They showed images of embryos that are similar and sighted it as "evidence". They showed skulls of different forms/times and sighted the changes as evidence. They showed DNA strands that are similar. They worked hard to convince us that similarities or patterns were evidence. THEY ARE NOT. They are similarities. So, I strongly disagree that evolution is a vast area of great proof & years of research.

 

Similarities can appear in the style or materials used by an artist. I began to see the teachers were grasping at straws & seemed desperate for us to follow them. I didn't have a relegious view, but I didn't buy their arguements either.

 

Things I have heard & seen: Possible evidence is hidden and ignored when it does not fit the evolution theories. Carbon dating and other tests can vary to extremes between labs. It is the accepted theory & the scientific culture... but they can't really prove any of it. So, they force it. They bully, condemn, slander, attack.... They exclude debate (which is what Ben Stein was showing).

 

Bill (Spy-) has condemned AIG. However, I have been to seminars regarding the subject and have read several books. I do not see them as false. They go a different road & are passionate about it. However, Ken Ham is a very intelligent man and is treated horribly. You may not agree, but to discredit the man's intelligence and discussions is not debating the issue. It is attacking him & not the lessons/evidence.

 

Macro & micro evolution are different discussions also. Very few scientist deny changes within a species. This is PROVEN. The big debate comes from changes between species. That is where NO evidence exists, only similarities... they can't prove it.

 

I happen to agree that racism is strengthened by evolution. The survival of the fittest aligns well with racist views. African people (Native Americans also) were treated horrilby by enlighted & educated Europeans as being inferior in culture and mental capacity. Literature from the 19th century is full of evolutionary views or racism connections.... even 20th century (ex. Doyle's Lost World). I was shocked at the racism & evolutionary ideas presented in that "great work". Racism is as old as civilization, however the theories and ideas of evolutionary teachings fueled that fire.

 

As for dinosaurs and people... there are many, many accounts... but if you mock them without reading the details, you will not get any data for decision making. Paintings on cave walls in France & Arizona (public is not allowed to see) that illustrate flying reptiles.... legends and accounts of large creatures such as dragons and LochNess style beings... fishermen accounts of strange catches.... teeth found that are from a creature that must be huge, but not a fossil tooth.... biblical accounts of behemoth and leviathon.... the accounts are too numerous to dismiss.

 

Perhaps it can't be won. Too many passionate discussions. I hope the OP got plenty of resources to look over but not get to bogged down in details. The general concepts will probably be best "doorways". I will say that Newton, Pasteur, Washington-Carver and many other GREAT scientist were men of FAITH and they had no trouble blending to them together. They respected the idea of creation & wanted to know why, when, what, how! It is very sad, today, so many refuse to do so.

 

Side note: I will forever find it interesting that Ben Stein got Richard Dawkins to admit that regardless of evolution, etc... it all had to start somewhere & there must have been a creator! Except Dawkins would not admit GOD or a relegious belief... but he would not rule out ALIENS. Now that is another can of worms...

 

Sorry long. The Op can probably get great outlines or notes from this debate that may help her narrow down her research! It is a tough one!;)

[Lovedtodeath]

As for dinosaurs and people...

 

:hurray:My pet subject! Laughed at by creationists and evolutionists alike! Do you have some resources for me? :drool5:

[Lovedtodeath]

I went into my own research on the subject fully expecting to be very enthusiastic about ID, but by the time I was done, I had lost a lot of respect for its primary spokespeople.

 

Okay, I think that you and Bill are talking about a movement with groups of specific people when you say ID and I am taking it as meaning something different.

[MIch elle]

http://biologos.org/

[Spy Car]

Bill (Spy-) has condemned AIG. However, I have been to seminars regarding the subject and have read several books. I do not see them as false. They go a different road & are passionate about it. However, Ken Ham is a very intelligent man and is treated horribly. You may not agree, but to discredit the man's intelligence and discussions is not debating the issue. It is attacking him & not the lessons/evidence.

 

Again our old friend "the straw man fallacy". I never said Ken Ham was "unintelligent". His ideas are incredulous. AiG is intellectually dishonest, but Ken Ham is an intelligent person (just deeply mis-guided/mis-guiding). Including his constant refrain that racism is a product of "evolutionary theory". Ignoring that Africans had been held in chains on our soil as sub-humans for two hundred years before Darwin published the Origin of the Species.

 

enlighted & educated[/i] Europeans as being inferior in culture and mental capacity. Literature from the 19th century is full of evolutionary views or racism connections.... even 20th century (ex. Doyle's Lost World). I was shocked at the racism & evolutionary ideas presented in that "great work". Racism is as old as civilization' date=' however the theories and ideas of evolutionary teachings fueled that fire. [/quote']

 

Huh? The "survival of the fittest" is a notion that came from Herbert Spencer and has nothing what-so-ever to do with Charles Darwin and the Theory of Evolution.

 

And the Theory of Evolution undermines racism as it shows we all have a common ancestry, and that we are all one human family. AiG fibs on this one too.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Spy Car

[Spy Car]

Intelligent Design as a movement, as a group may not have any standing in the scientific community, but there have been scientists, biologists, astronomers, etc., who have decided some before and some after studying science and working in that field, that there indeed was (or is) an intelligent creator.

 

Carmen, many (many) scientists who endorse the sound reasoning and the overwhelming evidence which bolster the Theory of Evolution in scientific terms also believe there is a Creator behind it all. The Theory of Evolution neither proves, nor dis-proves the existence of a Creator.

 

Bill

Edited May 13, 2009 by Spy Car

[Lovedtodeath]

one really important quote from it [Wikipedia article linked below] is from Michael Behe, ID's most qualified proponent: "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."

 

What's interesting is that you CAN prove evolution by experiment, but no one has been able to....

[LibraryLover]

Intelligent Design as a movement, as a group may not have any standing in the scientific community, but there have been scientists, biologists, astronomers, etc., who have decided some before and some after studying science and working in that field, that there indeed was (or is) an intelligent creator.

 

 

How on earth does evolution disprove a creator?!?

[Lovedtodeath]

How on earth does evolution disprove a creator?!?

Before coming to TWTM boards I never knew there were so many shades of gray. I was always presented with Intelligent Designer or not. Period.

 

But, just looking at how nature has trumped our best efforts at engineering in so many areas tells me that those things were designed.

[LibraryLover]

 

 

Evolution has been as proved as such a broad theory gets - scientifically speaking.

 

Is it easy to summarize, or for someone without a strong science background to understand the details and complexities, no... but that is true of other complex scientific or mathematical theories.

 

It's quiteamazing, really. I often wonder whether people who are calling scientists godless or *whatever* actually know any scientists. I have been around scientists most of my life and I don't know any scientist who doesn't appreicate and respect that learning is fluid , or who are not excited by depth of understanding. (Traits which include being open-minded). Which is why Creationists get to quote scientists who say things like "Oh, we found more info and have revised our previous skeletons/previous idea based on this new knowledge". I mean, that is what good scientists do. To hold it against them is grasping at all kinds of straw (men).

 

Not to mention, science = godless is one of the most ridiculous assumptions, ever. Darwin, in fact, was a religious man. I know many scientists who are. This whole Young Earth theory is the worst sort of PR for Christianity. Even popes learned something when man invented the telescope.

Edited May 13, 2009 by LibraryLover

[Greta]

Before coming to TWTM boards I never knew there were so many shades of gray. I was always presented with Intelligent Designer or not. Period.

 

That's what I was raised to believe as well. On the first day of one of my college biology classes, the professor told us that he was both a devout Christian and an evolutionary scientist, and that despite what we'd probably been told (he knew his audience), there was absolutely no conflict between the two. It can be quite an earth-shaking thought the first time you're presented with it! :001_smile:

[Kathy in MD]

What's interesting is that you CAN prove evolution by experiment, but no one has been able to....

 

Evolution has been proven, (not ToE though) but the proofs have been dismissed by many because it contradicts their beliefs.

 

There is much evidence from field observations during a scientist's professional lifetime that evolution does exist. But this is dismissed by many no-scientists as being "micro" evolution. But it's still evolution and from it we may extrapolate how "macro" evolution works.

 

There is DNA evidence of evolution. It's strange that I've never heard a creationist deny DNA studies that show a panda is really a bear and not a racoon, as has been proposed in the past due to anatomical simularities. Yet that same evidence is denied when it's applied to as a proof for evolution.

 

But maybe the best evidence that a layman can see for himself is the douglas fir. If you go to the extreme southern and northern ends of the douglas fir's range, you would swear they were two different species of trees. But if you traveled the entire range, carefully noting the subtle differences as you traveled, you could see the stages of evolution in process. I don't know why this doesn't make the evolutionary press. I learned this from my dh, who attended the school of forestry in Berkely.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Kathy in MD

[Jugglin'5]

Evolution has been proven, (not ToE though) but the proofs have been dismissed by many because it contradicts their beliefs.

 

There is much evidence from field observations during a scientist's professional lifetime that evolution does exist. But this is dismissed by many no-scientists as being "micro" evolution. But it's still evolution and from it we may extrapolate how "macro" evolution works.

 

There is DNA evidence of evolution. It's strange that I've never heard a creationist deny DNA studies that show a panda is really a bear and not a racoon, as has been proposed in the past due to anatomical simularities. Yet that same evidence is denied when it's applied to as proof of evolution.

 

But maybe the best evidence that a layman can see for himself is the douglas fir. If you go to the extreme southern and northern ends of the douglas fir's range, you would swear they were two different species of trees. But if you traveled the entire range, carefully noting the subtle differences as you traveled, you could see the stages of evolution in process. I don't know why this doesn't make the evolutionary press. I learned this from my dh, who attended the school of forestry in Berkely.

 

One can't win this argument, because if I say that you still haven't demonstrated the fir changing into another type of evergreen entirely, or even a different sort of plant altogether, you will say that you have demonstrated it, and that I just need to use my imagination to extrapolate further. Rather an impasse. I say you have only demonstrated relatively minor changes within a kind. You will say that we must extrapolate.

[calandalsmom]

Scientists, in general, don't have an issue with their ideas or beliefs being challenged - that is part of the process of science.

 

They *do* have an issue with having things called science which aren't and having claims which do not have scientific support put forward as of equivalent value to a scientific theory which has an incredible amount of scientific support.

 

I went into my own research on the subject fully expecting to be very enthusiastic about ID, but by the time I was done, I had lost a lot of respect for its primary spokespeople.

 

Personally, I have experienced nothing but respect for my theistic viewpoint and have seen and heard nothing disrespectful or prideful from the scientists and science educators I interacted with for several years.

 

I find the belittlement of the scientific community and its members very disturbing. From what I have seen and read, most of these folks are intelligent and open-minded and possessed of a high level of integrity who deserve to have their sincerity and capability respected even when one disagrees with them.

 

The anti intellectual bent of evangelicals today is very interesting.

 

Its worth considering that the founders of this country were both very christian and very interested in academic study- hence the founding of Harvard while the east coast city it inhabits was still a mud hole, relatively speaking.

 

Still, evangelicals also emphasize their own ability and right to interpret the Bible and I think that is the lynch pin for this whole creationist agenda which we see in the american non denominational, baptist or evangelical church- its FAR less prevalent afaik in the traditional liturgical churches in which the Bible and tradition share the stage. I dont think this movement really exists outside of the US to any measurable extent...well, at least not in Europe.

 

Given the absolute power an individual wields to read the Bible and interpret God's word, its no wonder americans have suddenly decided to heck with logical scientific doctrine and scientists and their methods. American evangelicals are qualified to interpret the word of God and apply it to their decisions in their daily lives. If qualified to interpret the word of God, surely Im qualified to interpret science as well! I choose to believe what I want. Its is my inalienable right, given to me by the Lord. Im going to choose the Bible. I'll sort out the facts and make them work for me.

 

That's all fine and good for religion. But it sure as heck is NOT science.

[Kathy in MD]

That's what I was raised to believe as well. On the first day of one of my college biology classes, the professor told us that he was both a devout Christian and an evolutionary scientist, and that despite what we'd probably been told (he knew his audience), there was absolutely no conflict between the two. It can be quite an earth-shaking thought the first time you're presented with it! :001_smile:

 

And I was shocked to find out that there were people who believed that the two views were contradictory! :D

[calandalsmom]

And I was shocked to find out that there were people who believed that the two views were contradictory! :D

 

I'll add astounded to the shocked.;)

[Lovedtodeath]

I'll sort out the facts and make them work for me.

 

That's all fine and good for religion. But it sure as heck is NOT science.

 

It certainly is not fine and good for religion.

 

Many people have used the Bible to justify domestic violence and racism, not to mention other atrocities!

 

And there are many traditions and beliefs that in themselves cause psychological harm and/or defame God himself.

[LizzyBee]

Huh? The "survival of the fittest" is a notion that came from Herbert Spencer and has nothing what-so-ever to do with Charles Darwin and the Theory of Evolution.

 

 

 

Wow, my high school and college both taught survivial of the fittest as a key attribute of evolution. But then I was an accounting major and had only basic science classes in college.

 

These discussions both confuse and fascinate me. :tongue_smilie:

[Greta]

And I was shocked to find out that there were people who believed that the two views were contradictory! :D

 

I'll add astounded to the shocked.;)

 

You guys must not have grown up in a red state! :001_smile:

[Lovedtodeath]

Wow, my high school and college both taught survivial of the fittest as a key attribute of evolution. But then I had only basic science classes in college.

 

These discussions both confuse and fascinate me. :tongue_smilie:

:iagree:Human Anatomy didn't discuss evolution at all. :)

[Dirtroad]

:hurray:My pet subject! Laughed at by creationists and evolutionists alike! Do you have some resources for me? :drool5:

 

Dinosaurs By Design by Gish

 

Dinosaurs of Eden by Ham

 

Dragons of the Deep by Wieland

 

The Bible (book fo Job) by God

 

Research books by Morris, Wieland, and Ham for this side of the debate. I am sure there are others... many are listed on this discussion. I also explained (in the post to which you refer) the many examples of historic/legends/biblical references to such creatures.

 

As for my original post......

** I didn't post AIG to be debated or treated as inferior in my intellectual journey. I am not using emotion and fluffy opinions - but believe the evidence adds up differently. The OP asked for resources. Should I always expect criticism or attacks regarding my suggestions? I have never been treated this way on any board! I am shocked by a homeschool board being such an experience.

 

I did not mention a resource that should be considered to be criticized or mocked by evolution supporters.:glare: I didn't even start with a post of opinion... just a resource. I only came to defend my post later... regretfully.

[Lovedtodeath]

I am well aware of a couple of those. Especially the one authored by God. ;)

 

I have found some interesting websites as well, but they can't be supported.

[Kathy in MD]

One can't win this argument' date=' because if I say that you still haven't demonstrated the fir changing into another type of evergreen entirely, or even a different sort of plant altogether, you will say that you have demonstrated it, and that I just need to use my imagination to extrapolate further. Rather an impasse. I say you have only demonstrated relatively minor changes within a kind. You will say that we must extrapolate.[/quote']

 

But I'm saying that the fir would be considered a different species IF we did't have the entire range to see the gradual changes that allow us to see the how the to extremes are connected. There is no extrapolation involved.

 

When there are gaps in the fossil records, creationists declare that there is no proof for evolution because of the gaps. But when we have the evidence to see the evolution between two very, very different subgroups, you've pushed it aside because the evidence proves it's the same species. However without that evidence these subspecies would be considered different species. To clean up a common saying for the boards, we're condemned if we do and condemned if we don't.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

But I'm saying that the fir would be considered a different species IF we did't have the entire range to see the gradual changes that allow us to see the how the to extremes are connected. There is no extrapolation involved.

It is still a tree. It is still a plant. Not a different species in my book.

[Kathy in MD]

Wow, my high school and college both taught survivial of the fittest as a key attribute of evolution. But then I was an accounting major and had only basic science classes in college.

 

These discussions both confuse and fascinate me. :tongue_smilie:

 

I'll throw in another scenario to confuse and confound you. :D Survivial also depends on blind, dumb luck at times. A species may be doing it's annual migration through a narrow check point when the nearby volcano blows big time. No more species! They were perfectly adapted for their enviroment, just not for the once in 500 years occurance.