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

[Kathy in MD]

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

 

I grew up in a moderate state, normally it's red, but moderately red. And the blue aspects were also moderates. Maybe it should be labeled purple, though the pundits persists in calling it red.

 

It also helped that we attended a particular denomiation that had no problems with theistic evolution. More to the point, it didn't believe it was the church's job to teach science. The church's job was to teach how to live as a Christian.

[Cindy in NY]

I am not a frequent poster, but I just wanted to express my appreciation for this thread and everyone who has contributed to it. It has been so informative and eye-opening for me.

 

I grew up a fundamentalist christian, in the Bible belt, and admittedly checked my brain at the door when it came to thinking about topics like evolution/creationism. I have actually uttered the phrase, (in my recent adult year no less!) "I meant to ask the pastor what we believe about the time frame of the dinosaurs."

 

I know...it is disturbing that I am teaching my children.

 

Only recently, after realizing that my current church situation was built on the ego and half-truths of one man, have I began to question the party line I grew up taking as a given. The learning curve feels huge, and I feel too ignorant to sort through all the information. Too dumb to even know what questions to ask in most instances.

 

All that to say, this has been a fascinating discussion to follow. I know it must feel frustrating to continually have to defend your position, but your patience and respectful manner of debate have enabled me to follow along and feel comfortable, for the first time, to consider all sides.

 

Your book suggestions are all duly noted on my Amazon wish list and I look forward to finally figuring out what I believe!

 

Thank you to everyone involved,

Cindy in NY

[WishboneDawn]

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've found in discussing evolution that I've often had to counter bad information even from those on "my side". For instance, a lot of people arguing for evolution will say that the ToE is the truth. But science can't make truth claims.

 

I tend to think the general understanding of science by people at large is harmed as much by the people who teach and argue for scientific ideas at times as those who would argue against. All well, that tends to be true of most things.

[WishboneDawn]

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

 

I may be misunderstanding your point so feel free to let me know but...

 

There are different species within trees. A species is a subgroup within another group. A lion is a different species of cat from a tiger but they're both still cats. When we talk about different species arising from other species no scientist would suggest something like a hyena arising from lions. It's a lot more subtle and incremental then that. Even talk about speciation is tough because we can't draw exact lines and there's still discussion over how exactly to determine different species.

 

Besides, it's not your book that counts in the case of the fir tree, it's the botanist's book. :tongue_smilie::D

[Lovedtodeath]

I know very, very little about speciation, including how to spell it! Basically my idea of evolution is that God created species according to their kinds. Dogs... all of them could have had only 2 to begin with. Cats... yep all of them. 2 (maybe 4 because of domesticated vs. wild). Or maybe just 2 animals of each order to start with.

 

So for trees I would think Deciduous vs. Evergreen and evolution could take over from there, as it was planned for and written into the genetic code.

 

And yes... the whole idea of speciation can be very subjective. I am googling the whole panda debate. I realy don't see that it would prove or disprove evolution.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Julpost]

What is ToE anyway??

[Julpost]

I have a question....

 

Where do evolutionists believe one's consciousness comes from? I think of life as being different from the buiding blocks that make up our physical bodies. That "something" that makes us different from plants or animals even.

 

I haven't yet found any sources that address that...anyone know of some?

[fivetails]

What is ToE anyway??

 

Abbreviation for Theory of Evolution. :)

[Peek a Boo]

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

 

well, no, they are not at all similar in that way. You are still insisting on misrepresenting what a view actually says. Since you've already explained in great detail how to consider people who do that, I'll stop there.

 

I have heard them present the argument that the ToE *strengthens* the racist attitudes of some, but not that the principle itself originates from the ToE.

 

Are you at all familiar w/ the field of bioethics?

[Peek a Boo]

It's quiteamazing, really. I often wonder whether people who are calling scientists godless or *whatever* actually know any scientists.

 

ya mean like the author of the book mentioned earlier? The God Delusion?

or did i miss the point of that book, and it was really supposed to foster fluid learning?? ;D

[Lovedtodeath]

 

well, no, they are not at all similar in that way. You are still insisting on misrepresenting what a view actually says. Since you've already explained in great detail how to consider people who do that, I'll stop there.

:cheers2:

[Peek a Boo]

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.

 

um, that's kinda exactly what I was talking about, LOL!

 

The first obvious conclusion was [eventually] proved wrong, and the newer version was deemed heretical. So it is w/ ToE and ID :D

 

the obvious conclusion that the scientific community has embraced is the ToE.

 

for the OP: The usual Creation Science/ID argument is: "I wouldn't be surprised to find that in time new technology shows things in the ToE to be wrong."

 

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:

 

I agree. But not all scientists are unbiased :D

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. ..... 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 agree that there is overwhelming support for the ToE.

i would also point out a famous quip about "what's left to invent?!!?" that was uttered quite a while back. That applies to scientific knowledge as well. many scientific ideas were believed for hundreds of years until new technology came along and rocked the boat.

 

Those who are rabid about Creation Science/ ID are gonna hafta bide their time and see if technology becomes available that CAN disprove ToE, unless it is disprovable ;).

[Peek a Boo]

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

 

LOOK!!

I'm agreeing with Bill!

 

:D

[Lovedtodeath]

I am going to have to book mark this one!

[Peek a Boo]

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

 

.....

 

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.

 

..... 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.

 

[per the OP]

 

1. Extrapolating micro vs macro is still extrapolating --not proof.

 

2. DNA can prove similarities. It doesn't prove direct lineage over millions of years. from our friendly wiki:

Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence of ancient genetic systems, as recovery of DNA from most fossils is impossible. This is because DNA will survive in the environment for less than one million years and slowly degrades into short fragments in solution.[105] Claims for older DNA have been made, most notably a report of the isolation of a viable bacterium from a salt crystal 250-million years old,[106] but these claims are controversial.

 

as with micro vs macro, Creation Science/ ID proponents will point to the limits we see. That may be one of the points that GretaLynne and I would disagree on which is obvious and which isn't: making the obvious leap to assume, or assuming that limits would be obvious? ;)

 

3. I can see why the fir tree example wouldn't make the evolutionary press --you're proving that a species can look different but it's still the same species. That comes in real handy in the abortion debate too: a single cell human has the same sort of DNA that a full grown human has, even tho they look NOTHING alike. Now if they prove two identical specimens to be completely different species, that would be interesting.....

When there are gaps in the fossil records, creationists declare that there is no proof for evolution because of the gaps.

 

well, not quite... you would have to have proof of direct lineage [parent to direct offspring] to PROVE ToE for most Creation Science/ ID proponents. What you consider "gaps" and what they consider "gaps" are likelynot the same ;)

[Julpost]

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.

 

 

Bill

 

What do you make of this?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Suppression_of_alternatives_to_evolution

[Greta]

Where do evolutionists believe one's consciousness comes from?

 

This doesn't exactly answer your question, but your question reminded me of seeing this article recently:

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090316201459.htm

 

It does not address the evolution of consciousness, but more like the physiology of consciousness. Still, it might be of some interest. And perhaps someone else will be better able to answer your question.

[Spy Car]

well, no, they are not at all similar in that way. You are still insisting on misrepresenting what a view actually says. Since you've already explained in great detail how to consider people who do that, I'll stop there.

 

I have heard them present the argument that the ToE *strengthens* the racist attitudes of some, but not that the principle itself originates from the ToE.

 

I'm not mis-representing ID. It is not based on science, it's pure conjecture, and most (if not all of it) has been knocked down as wrong-headed and unscientific.

 

As for AIG, listen to what Ken Ham (author of "Darwin's Plantation) has to say himself. He goes as far as to suggest some Christians are racists because they have "probably been influenced by evolutionary ideas to believe in different races". Huh????

 

It's the Joseph Goebbels school of keep telling "the big lie". Make the lie outrageous enough and keep repeating it, and you'll find people willing to believe it.

 

Ham is not wrong that there is only "one race", but it is despicable on his part to suggest the Theory of Evolution suggests other-wise. The man has no shame.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-085/race-which-one-are-you

 

Bill

Bill

[Greta]

But science can't make truth claims.

 

Um. Wow. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here. But if science can't distinguish between what is true and what is false, that makes the whole exercise seem rather pointless, doesn't it? Contrary to what you're saying, I've heard scientists say that the scientific method is in fact the best tool that humanity has for discovering truths. Again, please explain further if I'm missing your point. It's getting late and I've had a long day, so it's entirely possible that my befuddled brain isn't processing this conversation correctly.

[Greta]

um, that's kinda exactly what I was talking about, LOL!

 

The first obvious conclusion was [eventually] proved wrong, and the newer version was deemed heretical. So it is w/ ToE and ID :D

 

I'm starting to feel that we're talking in circles. Evolution wasn't the "obvious" conclusion. ID/Creationism ruled the day for all of recorded history until just a couple hundred years ago, when scientists began to demonstrate that, contrary to what seems obvious, natural processes can account for the diversity of life.

 

i agree that there is overwhelming support for the ToE.

 

Can we just end on that note? :lol:

[Kathy in MD]

I know very, very little about speciation, including how to spell it!

 

This might be a very good area for you to research. Not because of the evolution debate, but just so you better understand botony and zoology. You'll find out that it's a long debated issue on whether specific animals are a totally seperate species or if they are just subspecies with a broader species. My dh refers to it as the lumpers and the splitters. You'll also be introduced to some scientific debate which is has little imput from non-scientists. Except maybe the birders. They do like to rack up the species on their life lists :D

 

Basically my idea of evolution is that God created species according to their kinds. Dogs... all of them could have had only 2 to begin with. Cats... yep all of them. 2 (maybe 4 because of domesticated vs. wild). Or maybe just 2 animals of each order to start with.

 

So for trees I would think Deciduous vs. Evergreen and evolution could take over from there, as it was planned for and written into the genetic code.

 

Why would you split creation into deciduous and evergreen. I don't believe the Bible mentions decididuous trees or evergreen trees. The KJV mentions fruit bearing trees only. So bibically, why can't deciduous trees evolved from evergreen trees (even today we eat pine nuts, so they could be considered fruit trees.

 

And yes... the whole idea of speciation can be very subjective. I am googling the whole panda debate. I realy don't see that it would prove or disprove evolution.

 

My point was that scientists have used DNA to settle a long running dispute about the closest relatives of the panda. Only indirectly does this deal with evolution debate. OK, maybe it does deal a lot with that debate, but I don't hear an outcry about it.

 

With humans, we can often track relationships with genological charts, although we are starting to do it with DNA as well. I haven't heard creationists denying the plausability of using DNA to settle paternity disputes, or even tracking down very, very, very distant relatives. So why is DNA's scientific reliability discounted as soon as the word evolution is mentioned?

 

Scientist have discovered that specific discoveries frequently have general applications. Gravity is another principal that was first discovered in a specific place (Earth, or more specifically the apple tree Newton was sitting under) It's very accepted here on Earth. And scientists have decided that it also exists on other planets ad solar bodies. I haven't heard a genral outcry against applying the principal of gravity to other objects. So why is there a automatic outcry against applying DNA studies to evolutionary studies? I haven't seen any scientific reason to doubt it's applicability.

[Peek a Boo]

I'm not mis-representing ID. It is not based on science, it's pure conjecture, and most (if not all of it) has been knocked down as wrong-headed and unscientific.

 

well, no, it's not pure conjecture. It addresses the exact same evidence used in ToE and extrapolates a different conclusion based on observations of intelligent creatures and design.

As for AIG, listen to what Ken Ham (author of "Darwin's Plantation) has to say himself. He goes as far as to suggest some Christians are racists because they have "probably been influenced by evolutionary ideas to believe in different races". Huh????

 

so.... you admit and provide evidence that Ham does NOT claim that racism comes from evolution?

and are you suggesting that NOBODY could POSSIBLY use a scientific [or religious] idea to justify an evil desire?

It's the Joseph Goebbels school of keep telling "the big lie". Make the lie outrageous enough and keep repeating it, and you'll find people willing to believe it.

 

You are demonstrating that very thoroughly. Thank you.

 

but it is despicable on his part to suggest the Theory of Evolution suggests other-wise. The man has no shame.

 

 

so it's all Ken Ham's fault??

or is he merely reporting what people HAVE ALREADY done?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

[Spy Car]

What do you make of this?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Suppression_of_alternatives_to_evolution

 

That anyone that wants to can copy the look of wikipedia and misrepresent the truth?

 

There is no academic merit to either "creationism" or Intelligent Design". That's why people that care about science don't want in the schools.

 

Just like we want children to understand "the germ theory of disease" rather than teaching about "humors being out of balance".

 

Or alchemy vs chemistry. Or astrology vs astronomy. Geo-centrism vs the understanding that the planets in our solar system orbit the sun.

 

There has to be evidence for ideas to be accepted as scientifically valid. And to be considered a "Theory" the burden is extremely hight. ID, as it's main proponent Michael Behe admits doesn't come close to meeting the burden of proof. And nor does "creationism".

 

Bill

[Peek a Boo]

My point was that scientists have used DNA to settle a long running dispute about the closest relatives of the panda.

 

With humans, we can often track relationships with genological charts, although we are starting to do it with DNA as well. I haven't heard creationists denying the plausability of using DNA to settle paternity disputes, or even tracking down very, very, very distant relatives. So why is DNA's scientific reliability discounted as soon as the word evolution is mentioned?

 

 

nobody [ok, MOST.... lol] denies the applicability or accuracy in confirming relationships w/in a species. :)

 

the Theory of Gravity doesn't affect much scripturally. I'm thinking most Creation Science/ ID proponents would say the scientists aren't ALWAYS wrong. :D

[Peek a Boo]

 

There has to be evidence for ideas to be accepted as scientifically valid. And to be considered a "Theory" the burden is extremely hight. ID, as it's main proponent Michael Behe admits doesn't come close to meeting the burden of proof. And nor does "creationism".

 

I think what she was questioning is the fact that there ARE many scientific peers that hold the Creation Science/ ID theory to be a valid extrapolation. The "big players" in the science community have decided to blatantly eliminate them as credible peers simply because they disagree w/ an extrapolation.

[Peek a Boo]

I'm starting to feel that we're talking in circles. Evolution wasn't the "obvious" conclusion. ID/Creationism ruled the day for all of recorded history until just a couple hundred years ago, when scientists began to demonstrate that, contrary to what seems obvious, natural processes can account for the diversity of life.

 

 

sure! I'll grant you that things run in cycles.

what's considered obvious now wasn't then, and vice versa.

[Julpost]

Um. Wow. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here. But if science can't distinguish between what is true and what is false, that makes the whole exercise seem rather pointless, doesn't it? Contrary to what you're saying, I've heard scientists say that the scientific method is in fact the best tool that humanity has for discovering truths. Again, please explain further if I'm missing your point. It's getting late and I've had a long day, so it's entirely possible that my befuddled brain isn't processing this conversation correctly.

 

Well this was a new idea to me too.

 

Dr. Jay Wile, author of my son's Apologia General Science book, writes that, "Science is NOT a means by which something can be proven." He goes on that all conclusions that scientists make are tentative. "A single counter example is enough to destroy a conclusion built on thousands of years of scientific work." He also says that, "...science can be used to draw conclusions that are reasonably reliable." He emphasizes again though that the conclusions are always tentative.

 

It was something I had never heard before this year. My son told me that after reading his science assignment and I thought he was making it up. Dr. Wile also recommends "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper. He says, "this book is probably the most important work on the philosophy of science that has been published in the past 100 years, and it is considered one of the major guiding forces in modern science."

 

He has his Ph.D. in Nuclear Chemistry and has evidently published over 30 articles in peer reviewed journals.

 

Interesting.

[Kathy in MD]

I have a question....

 

Where do evolutionists believe one's consciousness comes from? I think of life as being different from the buiding blocks that make up our physical bodies. That "something" that makes us different from plants or animals even.

 

I haven't yet found any sources that address that...anyone know of some?

 

The only reliable studies of consiousness I'm aware of is for humans. Animal studies are still focused mainly on intellegence and behavior to the best of my knowledge. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some very early studies looking for animal consiousness.

 

The closest things I've heard on evolution and consiousness may be the books on why humans are predisposed to believe in a superior being. I haven't read these because they aren't of particular interest to me. And I'm not sure that they aren't still more philosophical than scientific.

[Peek a Boo]

Um. Wow. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here. But if science can't distinguish between what is true and what is false, that makes the whole exercise seem rather pointless, doesn't it? Contrary to what you're saying, I've heard scientists say that the scientific method is in fact the best tool that humanity has for discovering truths. Again, please explain further if I'm missing your point. It's getting late and I've had a long day, so it's entirely possible that my befuddled brain isn't processing this conversation correctly.

 

I agree w/ WishboneDawn:

 

Science can only make statements about what it observes.

Sometimes those statements may indeed be faulty, so by default they CAN't be "the truth."

[Spy Car]

so it's all Ken Ham's fault??

or is he merely reporting what people HAVE ALREADY done?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

 

He's not the only one, but yes Ken Ham is deeply responsible with trying to deliberately confuse people (and most contentiously young children) by trying to link the ideas of Malthus and Spencer with the Theory of Evolution.

 

So he tries to "defeat" the straw man in a fashion he knows full well is dishonest. It's the Big Lie. Told over and over and over again. But no matter how many time he tells the same lie it is still not true.

 

Bill

[Greta]

 

It was something I had never heard before this year. My son told me that after reading his science assignment and I thought he was making it up. Dr. Wile also recommends "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper. He says, "this book is probably the most important work on the philosophy of science that has been published in the past 100 years, and it is considered one of the major guiding forces in modern science."

 

Oh, Popper, of course! If I wasn't so tired I would have recognized that in a heartbeat. Contrary to Wile's claims that it's a major guiding force in modern science, I have never met a scientist who accepts Popper's views of the philosophy of science. Then again, maybe I've led a sheltered life, I dunno. :) But the scientists with which I have had the opportunity to discuss it (which admittedly is a small sample) reject Popper's view of science pretty wholeheartedly.

 

Editing: I don't think I was coherent. Not the first time, sadly. :) I lumped everything Popper ever said together in one category. I think his view that in order to be a valid scientific hypothesis, it must be falsifiable is pretty widely accepted. I wasn't challenging that part at all. Only his assertion that science is only capable of disproving and not of proving. When we discussed this view of Popper's as well as Kuhn's view of paradigms in a History of Science class that I took, I remember my Prof commenting that he did not know of any scientists that accepted either view. But he was just speaking of scientists he knew personally there at the University. I had not thought much of either one again until a conversation here a few months back. I then asked my dh what he thought of Popper's view, and he said he felt that viewpoint was rather nihilistic, and was contrary to the entire endeavor of science. DH has a PhD in Physics and works as a professional researcher at a national laboratory. He is not, obviously, a philosopher of science, much less the final word on the matter. :D But these are the things I was thinking about as I was posting last night. I intend to explore this topic further, because obviously anyone attempting to defend science should be well versed in the philosophy of science.

Edited May 14, 2009 by GretaLynne

[Peek a Boo]

Well this was a new idea to me too.

 

Dr. Jay Wile, author of my son's Apologia General Science book, writes that, "Science is NOT a means by which something can be proven." He goes on that all conclusions that scientists make are tentative. "A single counter example is enough to destroy a conclusion built on thousands of years of scientific work." He also says that, "...science can be used to draw conclusions that are reasonably reliable." He emphasizes again though that the conclusions are always tentative.

 

It was something I had never heard before this year. My son told me that after reading his science assignment and I thought he was making it up. Dr. Wile also recommends "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper. He says, "this book is probably the most important work on the philosophy of science that has been published in the past 100 years, and it is considered one of the major guiding forces in modern science."

 

He has his Ph.D. in Nuclear Chemistry and has evidently published over 30 articles in peer reviewed journals.

 

Interesting.

 

In the ToE circles, Dr. Jay Wile would not be considered a credible scientific peer. ;)

[Spy Car]

In the ToE circles, Dr. Jay Wile would not be considered a credible scientific peer. ;)

 

LOOK!!

I'm agreeing with Peep :D

[Peek a Boo]

He's not the only one, but yes Ken Ham is deeply responsible with trying to deliberately confuse people (and most contentiously young children) by trying to link the ideas of Malthus and Spencer with the Theory of Evolution.

So he tries to "defeat" the straw man in a fashion he knows full well is dishonest. It's the Big Lie. Told over and over and over again. But no matter how many time he tells the same lie it is still not true.

 

Bill

 

:001_huh:

 

he isn't TRYING to link them, he's saying that many people already HAVE.

 

He is stating a FACT.

 

how is that dishonest?

 

and just to clarify --which part do you think is the straw man?

[Peek a Boo]

LOOK!!

I'm agreeing with Peep :D

 

:lol:

[Spy Car]

:001_huh:

 

he isn't TRYING to link them, he's saying that many people already HAVE.

 

He is stating a FACT.

 

how is that dishonest?

 

and just to clarify --which part do you think is the straw man?

 

Have you actually watched or read any of the AiG materials???

 

The straw man in this case is Mathus and Spencer. And links between racism and the Theory of Evolution.

[Julpost]

That anyone that wants to can copy the look of wikipedia and misrepresent the truth?

 

There is no academic merit to either "creationism" or Intelligent Design". That's why people that care about science don't want in the schools.

 

Just like we want children to understand "the germ theory of disease" rather than teaching about "humors being out of balance".

 

Or alchemy vs chemistry. Or astrology vs astronomy. Geo-centrism vs the understanding that the planets in our solar system orbit the sun.

 

There has to be evidence for ideas to be accepted as scientifically valid. And to be considered a "Theory" the burden is extremely hight. ID, as it's main proponent Michael Behe admits doesn't come close to meeting the burden of proof. And nor does "creationism".

 

 

 

Bill

 

As if Wikipedia is THE source of truth?

 

Looking up the sources listed at the bottom of the page would probably be a better way of beginning to determine the validity of the claims. That's my guess anyway.

[Kate CA]

I think this website is particularly a good one:

http://creation.com/

[Julpost]

In the ToE circles, Dr. Jay Wile would not be considered a credible scientific peer. ;)

 

 

Really? I didn't realize that. Why not?

[Julpost]

Oh, Popper, of course! If I wasn't so tired I would have recognized that in a heartbeat. Contrary to Wile's claims that it's a major guiding force in modern science, I have never met a scientist who accepts Popper's views of the philosophy of science. Then again, maybe I've led a sheltered life, I dunno. :) But the scientists with which I have had the opportunity to discuss it (which admittedly is a small sample) reject Popper's view of science pretty wholeheartedly.

 

Hmmm, that's interesting. That's why I love this board. Normally, I would have read that and not have had another thought about it. Now I'll have to go find out what other scientists have to say, since I am not one myself.

[Lovedtodeath]

OK, maybe it does deal a lot with that debate, but I don't hear an outcry about it.

 

So why is there a automatic outcry against applying DNA studies to evolutionary studies? I haven't seen any scientific reason to doubt it's applicability.

Is there or is there not an outcry?

[Spy Car]

As if Wikipedia is THE source of truth?

 

Looking up the sources listed at the bottom of the page would probably be a better way of beginning to determine the validity of the claims. That's my guess anyway.

 

Dr. Wile is correct in what you quoted, "a single counter example is enough to destroy a conclusion built on thousands of years of scientific work."

 

Now the Theory of Evolution has not been around a thousand years, but if it were wrong it could be dis-proven. Unlike "creationism" and ID which can not be disproven because they rely solely on unprovable (or dis-provable) matters of faith.

 

Science only deals with those things that have the capacity to be dis-proved. instead of being dis-proven the Theory of Evolution has only seen the evidence mount. Including things such as DNA evidence Darwin didn't have access to. It's remarkable that he was so prescient.

 

Now I'd check the sources listed if I thought there was a remote change they were credible, but I don't think titles such as "Go to hell, creationists!" are going to get me anywhere.

[Lovedtodeath]

This might be a very good area for you to research. Not because of the evolution debate, but just so you better understand botony and zoology. You'll find out that it's a long debated issue on whether specific animals are a totally seperate species or if they are just subspecies with a broader species. My dh refers to it as the lumpers and the splitters. You'll also be introduced to some scientific debate which is has little imput from non-scientists. Except maybe the birders. They do like to rack up the species on their life lists :D

 

Yes, It probably would! I rather enjoyed my little bit of panda research.

 

I just don't see why it makes a difference whether a panda is of the bear species or not.

 

I am curious as to how DNA would prove ToE. I haven't seen much on that.

[Kathy in MD]

nobody [ok, MOST.... lol] denies the applicability or accuracy in confirming relationships w/in a species. :)

 

the Theory of Gravity doesn't affect much scripturally. I'm thinking most Creation Science/ ID proponents would say the scientists aren't ALWAYS wrong. :D

 

But Scripture has been interpreted to support the flat

earth theory and it's been interpreted to support the theory that the Sun and universe circled the Earth. I won't even start to go into the moral evils it's been interpreted to support.

 

So why do you think it's not been misinterpreted in regards to the creation story? We are only human, and we are often wrong in our interpretations of even the most obvious of worldly things. We err. Why shouldn't we reexamine our interpretation of the creation story in the Bible just as we demand our scientists reexamine their interpretation of the data. Especially since there are 2 separate creation stories in Genesis.

 

Sorry, but the Bible may or may not be inerrent. It may or may not be literally true. BUT I am human and I err. Therefore I am very likely to misinterpret parts of the Bible, just as you are likely to.

[Lovedtodeath]

But Scripture has been interpreted to support the flat

earth theory and it's been interpreted to support the theory that the Sun and universe circled the Earth. I won't even start to go into the moral evils it's been interpreted to support.

 

So why do you think it's not been misinterpreted in regards to the creation story? We are only human, and we are often wrong in our interpretations of even the most obvious of worldly things. We err. Why shouldn't we reexamine our interpretation of the creation story in the Bible just as we demand our scientists reexamine their interpretation of the data. Especially since there are 2 separate creation stories in Genesis.

 

Sorry, but the Bible may or may not be inerrent. It may or may not be literally true. BUT I am human and I err. Therefore I am very likely to misinterpret parts of the Bible, just as you are likely to.

What?!!!

[Julpost]

But Scripture has been interpreted to support the flat

earth theory and it's been interpreted to support the theory that the Sun and universe circled the Earth. I won't even start to go into the moral evils it's been interpreted to support.

 

So why do you think it's not been misinterpreted in regards to the creation story? We are only human, and we are often wrong in our interpretations of even the most obvious of worldly things. We err. Why shouldn't we reexamine our interpretation of the creation story in the Bible just as we demand our scientists reexamine their interpretation of the data. Especially since there are 2 separate creation stories in Genesis.

 

Sorry, but the Bible may or may not be inerrent. It may or may not be literally true. BUT I am human and I err. Therefore I am very likely to misinterpret parts of the Bible, just as you are likely to.

 

A bit off topic but I'm so glad you mentioned this because I could not remember it for the life of me....where is the 2nd creation story in Genesis? I've been wanting to look this up.

[Lovedtodeath]

#39 it is mentioned here and for the further discussion; #54 Start here and read down the thread.

[Kathy in MD]

This might be a very good area for you to research. Not because of the evolution debate, but just so you better understand botony and zoology. You'll find out that it's a long debated issue on whether specific animals are a totally seperate species or if they are just subspecies with a broader species. My dh refers to it as the lumpers and the splitters. You'll also be introduced to some scientific debate which is has little imput from non-scientists. Except maybe the birders. They do like to rack up the species on their life lists :D

 

Yes, It probably would! I rather enjoyed my little bit of panda research.

 

I just don't see why it makes a difference whether a panda is of the bear species or not.

 

I am curious as to how DNA would prove ToE. I haven't seen much on that.

 

I'm not an expert on DNA by any means, so I'll be overgeneralizing the data. (Maybe I need to do a bit more research :D ) Hopefully someone else with more knowledge will jump in.

 

DNA is said to support evolution because of all the commonalities between the DNA of the species. By observing the frequency of genetic variations of short lived species and changes in the fossil record, scientists have estimated when various groups have separated from a common anscestor. This by and of it's self is not enough to support evolution, but it is a major peice of evidece to support other evidence.

 

And I'm so tired, I'm not sure I'm making sense. I'm bowing out for the moment.

[Kathy in MD]

A bit off topic but I'm so glad you mentioned this because I could not remember it for the life of me....where is the 2nd creation story in Genesis? I've been wanting to look this up.

 

I not so tired I can't answer this one. It's the second chapter of Genesis, verse 4 (?)

[asta]

The only reliable studies of consiousness I'm aware of is for humans. Animal studies are still focused mainly on intellegence and behavior to the best of my knowledge. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some very early studies looking for animal consiousness.

 

The closest things I've heard on evolution and consiousness may be the books on why humans are predisposed to believe in a superior being. I haven't read these because they aren't of particular interest to me. And I'm not sure that they aren't still more philosophical than scientific.

 

Actually, evidence was discovered in primates.

 

Koko, the gorilla who was taught sign language, had a kitten/cat named "All Ball" (she named the cat herself). At some point, the cat died. When Koko's handlers told her about it, and asked her if she understood what it meant, Koko replied that All Ball had "gone to a higher place" and would not be returning.

 

 

asta