Is Creationism Still Being Taught in Public Schools?

[humanino]

But then you said that once something has changed completely it can be called a new species. So which is it ? This statement doesn't posess much substance.

The world is not a simple dichotomy of good versus evil. Pretty much no serious model has sharp edges. Is a teenager an adult or a child ? Because some people at some stage in their life have both adult and child features, does it mean that the concepts of adult and child are completely irrelevant ? They do provide a useful classification of people. Species do no more than that, with a larger class of living beings.

Whatever evidence you have shown me does not explain how the snake slowly evolved or changed into a lizard, for example.

You keep using the same strategy as before :
(step 0) find counterexample number N+1, and claim the whole thing is wrong.
(step 1) Scientists explains example N+1
(step 2) Go to step 0 and replace N+1 by N+2

What have you yourself observed that can prove evolution , in the full sense of the word, as the fact you say it is ?

Nothing can ever "prove" any theory for certain. It is completely possible that Somebody put the fossils there to test our faith in Them. Simply, it does not have scientific value, because it does not make testable predictions. Certainty is good for people who are not interested in science. If you want to make progress with science, the first thing you have to embrace is ignorance. There are always boundaries to our knowledge in science. We do not have omnipotent answers.

To put this into perspective, if you were walking in the woods and suddenly come upon a house fully furnished and maintained would you conclude that it came by chance ?

This is your own perspective, your own reductio ad absurdum.

 

[╔(σ_σ)╝]

For instance, the usual "argument"
I found an "exception" to your "theory", therefore the entire thing is false. This is not how science works. It would have been extremely easy to find seemingly counterexamples to even Newton's principia. For instance, thermodynamics was not known, so it was not understood why there should be an arrow of time. Since Newton does not explain why pieces of glass never jump from the floor to form glasses on the table, his "explanation" for planetary orbits and projectiles is invalid.

You still believe you can convince them otherwise ?

I am happy you bring up this point. I would also like to commend you on the use of the word theory. Jardjames claims evolution is a fact which I believe it is not. Certainly, even a scientific theory must follow the scientific method which includes testing a hypothesis completely and then making adjustments to finalize the claim and finally if proven, pronounced a theory.

Evolution has not been tested for the most important things it claims to explain. Testing a very very small implication of the theory is not proof of the theory. You make it seem like what I found is an exception to the norm. But in reality the "proof " that is available of Evolution does not even scrap the tip of the ice.

What strikes me even more is that scientist perform experiments in the hope of reproducing the result of evolution but they fail to notice that their efforts involves intelligent experiments conducted with a definite purpose. This intelligence and direction is obviously lacking in "nature" as we know it.

 

[JaredJames]

Interesting point you make there- "no change in species is required" . But then you said that once something has changed completely it can be called a new species. So which is it ? This statement doesn't posess much substance.

Why does it have to be absolute? This is just non-sense. That's like saying it's only driving if I'm going to / from work. If I'm not going to / from work then I can't possibly be driving.

It is also amusing how the definition provided seems insufficient in explaining how possible it is for complex life forms to come from extremely basics ones.

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

How is that in any way vague or insufficient? It covers it nicely.

I still do not see the ample evidence you are referring to. I believe in adaption and that is what you have shown me.

Adapting is evolution, whether you like it or not. And once something adapts enough, it can be considered a new species.
If a land based snake, over successive generations adapted to allow to swim, that would give you a new species of snake.

As regards your last point, I am not saying creation should be taught in schools and I do have "proof" for my believe in creation.

You might want to bring this out on the table because you'd make a mint from it. Seeing as all the rest, including what you put at the end, is all disproved.

I'd add that something of human construct, not possible in nature means nothing. It is a condition of the human - creativity, the ability to think and calculate - that allowed the object to come into being. If the same abilities do not appear elsewhere in nature, then it simply cannot come into existence naturally.

Besides, a house cannot evolve in the biological sense because, well, it isn't biological - there be no genes to evolve.

I followed the exact same reasoning you used. Please point out exactly how I did not.

It's not the same logic.

We have direct evidence of evolution - we can force it in a lab, the guppies, whether you accept it or not is irrelevant. We have no evidence of creationism - your 'evidence' is based purely on your own assumptions and misunderstandings.

Now if I came up to you and said "here's X and here's the evidence to back it up" and then "here's Y, if we assume Z then Y must be true", which would you accept? Which is the logical choice?

 

[humanino]

Honetsly ╔(σ_σ)╝, I agreed with you earlier that we should not pursue this debate any further. For one thing, I am not a biologist, so I will not be able to do justice to their work. I have a very superficial knowledge of evolution, I do have a couple of good references here at home, some I did not finish. Right now, it is 1am and I have to write an abstract and submit it before tomorrow. I cannot put much further efforts in this discussion. Let me say that I think we respectfully disagree. For instance, I am absolutely convinced that O'Reilly is a very bright individual, although it almost never happens that I agree with him.

 

[╔(σ_σ)╝]

You keep using the same strategy as before :
(step 0) find counterexample number N+1, and claim the whole thing is wrong.
(step 1) Scientists explains example N+1
(step 2) Go to step 0 and replace N+1 by N+2

Again, this is not about finding counter examples but simply demanding that some satisfying proof be produced for the major points that evolution claims to explain.

Funny enough, the same technique you provided here is the same technique science uses to "disprove" the bible.

How did noah fit all thoes animals into the ark ? The logistics does not make sense ?

How could the whole Earth be flooded ? It doesn't make sense etc...

These are the typical arguments of science against the bible which is the same technique you outlined.

 

[JaredJames]

This intelligence and direction is obviously lacking in "nature" as we know it.

Like monkeys learning to use tools? Dogs learning to open doors? etc, etc, etc.

Yep, nature lacks intelligence.

Anyhow, nothing more constructive can come here so I'm out.

 

[humanino]

Funny enough, the same technique you provided here is the same technique science uses to "disprove" the bible.

Although I am not a biologist, I do happen to call myself a scientist. I think it would be quite foolish of a scientist to attempt to "disprove" the bible. The people who read the bible literally pay very little respect to the symbolic value of the book.

 

[╔(σ_σ)╝]

Why does it have to be absolute? This is just non-sense. That's like saying it's only driving if I'm going to / from work. If I'm not going to / from work then I can't possibly be driving.


How is that in any way vague or insufficient? It covers it nicely.


Adapting is evolution, whether you like it or not. And once something adapts enough, it can be considered a new species.
If a land based snake, over successive generations adapted to allow to swim, that would give you a new species of snake.


You might want to bring this out on the table because you'd make a mint from it. Seeing as all the rest, including what you put at the end, is all disproved.

I'd add that something of human construct, not possible in nature means nothing. It is a condition of the human - creativity, the ability to think and calculate - that allowed the object to come into being. If the same abilities do not appear elsewhere in nature, then it simply cannot come into existence naturally.

Besides, a house cannot evolve in the biological sense because, well, it isn't biological - there be no genes to evolve.


It's not the same logic.

We have direct evidence of evolution - we can force it in a lab, the guppies, whether you accept it or not is irrelevant. We have no evidence of creationism - your 'evidence' is based purely on your own assumptions and misunderstandings.

Now if I came up to you and said "here's X and here's the evidence to back it up" and then "here's Y, if we assume Z then Y must be true", which would you accept? Which is the logical choice?

You seem not to understand my point with regards to the guppies. They do an excellent job in showing that adaption of such kinds such as skin pattern or slight DNA modification is possible BUT they do not prove that such changes can occur on such a grandscale that a new species is formed.

In a sense this is like mathematically induction. The guppies is the base case but the flaw is that you are saying since the base case is true (as in adaptation is possible) then new species can be formed from similar adaptation. It certainly does not follow.


To be honest, I have no interest in pursuing this discussion further. It is certainly time for me to retire and I do not want to turn my day into a melancholic one. This discussion is pretty meaningless,as it wpupd yeild nought.

 

[qspeechc]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html"

There are hypotheses and theories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory" to the scientist does not mean what it means to the lay-man. To understand Science we must understand these concepts (and many other things), which is one of the reasons I think the teaching of evolution and the evidence supporting it is very important in schools. Not only are we learing about the way the world works, but how Science works, and I think evolution is the best way to teach the scientific method. Perhaps if ╔(σ_σ)╝ had been taught about the scientific method, evidence etc. he--and many others--would simply accept evolution as a fact of life, the same way we accept Newtonian physics or the fact that the Earth is spherical (roughly); they each have about as much evidence to support them as the others.

 

[NeoDevin]

What evolution claims is possible is the change from one species to another. This I have not seen proof of. The guppies or fruit fly after undergoing "evolution", as you call it, in both case they still guppies and fruit flies, respectively. I certainly have not seen any real evidence showing me the exact process of transformation from one species to another. Neither have I seen any modern day proof of this. This were the typical evolutionary excuse comes into play... evolution occurs over millions of year blah blah. Well I can use the same line of reasoning too...

I would like to add the point that "species" are poorly defined to begin with. Bacteria (or plants) that reproduce asexually? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species" ? Species are a definition of convenience. You can call a glass of water: "hot", "warm", "cold", "fresh", and/or "salty", but that doesn't mean each of them has a distinct cutoff point.

In a similar way, it is convenient to define a group of organisms that reproduce sexually with each other as a species. What about ring species, where one population can reproduce with two others, but those two others cannot interbreed? For asexually reproducing organisms, it is convenient to define a group of organisms sharing certain characteristics to be a species. How many new characteristics are required before you count it as a new species?

In a sense this is like mathematically induction. The guppies is the base case but the flaw is that you are saying since the base case is true (as in adaptation is possible) then new species can be formed from similar adaptation. It certainly does not follow.

Actually, the base case is: "There is life."

The induction step is: "Offspring are different from their parents, and those differences affect their chances of survival and reproduction."

From this we conclude that life can change an arbitrarily large amount given large enough periods of time.

 

[Gokul43201]

Evolution has not been tested for the most important things it claims to explain. Testing a very very small implication of the theory is not proof of the theory.

Ignoring the fact that in Science, there is no such thing as a "proof of the theory", I still hope you are an expert in the field to be making the rather bold claims you are making. What, for instance, are some of the "most important things it claims to explain" that remain untested? And what "very very small implication" do you believe contains the entirety of the experimentally examined portion of the field?

 

[IMP]

The teaching of the theory of evolution asks that people believe that there once was an extremely small, extremely hot, and extremely dense area of matter and space that expanded and literally turned into you and me. A really hot dense ball of quark soup just turned into people. Now I find it hard to argue that this actually didn’t happen, it probably did happen. However, the argument comes down to whether this happened “by accident” or perhaps “by chance” or whether it was somehow “guided” by an intelligence, but it still takes a leap of faith in either case in my opinion. You can describe it as many baby steps as you want but it still takes a significant leap of faith.
I don’t think one theory or another should be forced on people, just present the evidence in all cases and let people decide for themselves.

 

[JaredJames]

The teaching of the theory of evolution asks that people believe that there once was an extremely small, extremely hot, and extremely dense area of matter and space that expanded and literally turned into you and me.

Why the hell have you brought the big bang into this? It has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

I don’t think one theory or another should be forced on people, just present the evidence in all cases and let people decide for themselves.

Evolution is a proven theory. It happens, people need to deal with that and stop denying it.

There is zero evidence for creationism.

The choice is a) do I believe in evolution with evidence to support it or b) do I believe in creationism with nothing in the way of evidence, only pure blind faith.

Again, creationism doesn't hold equal ground to evolution.

 

[Gokul43201]

The teaching of the theory of evolution asks that people believe that there once was an extremely small, extremely hot, and extremely dense area of matter and space that expanded and literally turned into you and me. A really hot dense ball of quark soup just turned into people. Now I find it hard to argue that this actually didn’t happen, it probably did happen. However, the argument comes down to whether this happened “by accident” or perhaps “by chance” or whether it was somehow “guided”, but it still takes a leap of faith in either case in my opinion. You can describe it as many baby steps as you want but it still takes a significant leap of faith.
I don’t think one theory or another should be forced on people, just present the evidence in all cases and let people decide for themselves.

From the opening sentence of this post, nothing you've said here is true. It is useless to try and argue science against people that will not make the minimal effort it takes to learn the definitions of things they would like to talk about (specifically when the plan is to poo-poo the entirety of the scientific community).

 

[IMP]

I disagree. I think that the theory of the evolution of life lies within the theory of the evolution of the universe. The theory of the evolution of life is a sub-chapter in a broader theory of the entire evolution of everything. How can you claim to know the theory of life without knowing the theory of pre-life?

 

[ebits21]

The teaching of the theory of evolution asks that people believe that there once was an extremely small, extremely hot, and extremely dense area of matter and space that expanded and literally turned into you and me. A really hot dense ball of quark soup just turned into people. Now I find it hard to argue that this actually didn’t happen, it probably did happen. However, the argument comes down to whether this happened “by accident” or perhaps “by chance” or whether it was somehow “guided”, but it still takes a leap of faith in either case in my opinion. You can describe it as many baby steps as you want but it still takes a significant leap of faith.
I don’t think one theory or another should be forced on people, just present the evidence in all cases and let people decide for themselves.

Do you learn that apples fall to Earth because of gravity OR MAYBE little forest spirits want to return their spiritual energy to Mana at the center of the Earth. Or maybe an invisible Sasquatch tied invisible ropes to all the apples in the world and pulled them towards his lair at the center of the Earth.

No, not every theory relies on "faith" in the same way. There's infinitely many theories on every topic, you cannot teach them all, and there's no point on teaching incorrect ones. Further, a theory in science means something very different than layman theories.

Science relies on testing theories you can prove wrong, then seeing if they can pass that test. If they don't (creationism) they're rejected because they don't describe reality.

The difference in science is that any "faith" in an explanation is continually tested against what actually happens. In addition, predictions of those explanations are made. If evolution is true you expect x, y, and z consequences. So at any time that faith could be proved wrong.

This is a very large part of what actual biologists do. And guess what, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It's has been tested and verified in numerous ways and all of those ways converge on the same explanation. When evolution was proposed nobody knew of genetics, nobody knew how to read geological strata and date rocks, nobody knew how truly old the Earth is. ALL of those things helped to further verify the theory.

And more than that, every single day new papers are published that continually verify evolution in new ways.

The ONLY argument that you can make for creationism is one in which the "creator" somehow created the laws that put the universe in motion, and a consequence of those laws is evolution and life.

You can't test that with science, ever. I wouldn't believe that either based on logical arguments and the study of human history, but that's a separate matter.

 

[humanino]

I do not think there is any reason to argue actually. According to people who would argue like

[nothing new or worth reading here]

we were thrown out of the garden of Eden because we opened our eyes. There is nothing really new or original about this, Prometheus was also punished. They prefer the comfort of an all answering omnipotent superbeing. What is funny to me, is that they often overlap with people who complain about "big governments" and "their freedom", but they fail to realize that freedom is not about drinking beer while watching football on a giant TV screen. Rather, freedom begins by knowledge and facing the responsibilities going with it, such as being an informed voter. Explaining to them this last sentence would be more effective than arguing with them about evolution or the big bang theory.

 

[caffenta]

I don’t think one theory or another should be forced on people, just present the evidence in all cases and let people decide for themselves.

Regardless of what you think, evolution is science and therefore it should be presented in science class. Creationism is not science, and it has no place in science class. It should be presented in Sunday school where it belongs.

Scientists don't go around saying that evolution should be taught in Sunday school, do they?

 

[Gokul43201]

I disagree. I think that the theory of the evolution of life lies within the theory of the evolution of the universe. The theory of the evolution of life is a sub-chapter in a broader theory of the entire evolution of everything. How can you claim to know the theory of life without knowing the theory of pre-life?

How can one claim to understand the structural properties of a chair without knowing the origin of mass?

Since this has now regressed from disputing not only the theory of [biological] evolution, but mainstream cosmology as well, I recommend (to the Mentors), that this thread has gone far off the deep end, and needs to be put to rest.

 

[Evo]

Agreed, closed.

 

[ZapperZ]

I will remind relevant participants of the PF Rules that you have agreed to. If you make suggestions or proposals, especially on a scientific issue, that are not backed by valid evidence, such as peer-reviewed journals, you are in violation of such rules.

This thread is locked and, pending review, warnings/infractions may follow.

Zz.