Creationism & Evolution In American Public Schools

[Farsight one]

Firstly, Kent Hovind's offer as mentioned above is fraudulent. If you read all the details, you will notice some very distinct problems. First is that HE decides which scientists review the information, no complaining. Second, he is free to remove any information he so chooses before he hands it over to those scientists. (and he has reduced 200 pages to only 1 before). Thirdly, and this is most important, he has set up a straw man. What he is calling "evolution" is not evolution at all. Evolution speaks ONLY of changes in animals over time. His criteria involves creation of the universe and scientific proof that it could have happened without God.

I'd have to go digging for it, but I've seen a rebuttal offer before. An evolutionary biologist was offering $1 million for proof of creationism, and did not place ridiculous restrictions on the criteria like Hovind did.

Secondly, no, Creationism, in it's current state should not be taught in schools. Every single scientific theory has gone through a process. It was proposed, reviewed, placed in peer reviewed articles, revised, improved, presented at conferences, etc, etc, etc. Creationism proponents are attempting to skip all of the effort. This video explains better than I can: [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0nHB_ZVXHQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0nHB_ZVXHQ[/url]

If you want to "teach the controversy", then you sure as heck better allow astrology, divination, phrenology, alchemy, geocentrism, and the flat earth theory to be taught too. They are all ideas genuinely believed by people - even today.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1532123' date='May 18 2008, 01:00 AM']ID is NOT teaching that the earth was created in 6 24-hour periods.[/quote]

I wasn't referring to that, I was referring to JIMSH.
It would be wise of you to read the links I posted, and then get back with me. Either concede your ignorance, as I did when I saw the evidence, or insist that ID be taught because of how fast we evolved, or attack the gaps that do exist.

If you knew the evidence, attacking the gaps is not scientifically sound, as far as jumpint the gun to ID. As a matter of science, teaching ID in science class, is next to foolish if evidence explains it. Philosophy is the only place that idea should escape with being taught.

I would enjoy hearing your thoughts while acknowledging the evidence within your response and how it affects your response.

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1532317' date='May 18 2008, 11:48 AM']I wasn't referring to that, I was referring to JIMSH.
It would be wise of you to read the links I posted, and then get back with me. Either concede your ignorance, as I did when I saw the evidence, or insist that ID be taught because of how fast we evolved, or attack the gaps that do exist.

If you knew the evidence, attacking the gaps is not scientifically sound, as far as jumpint the gun to ID. As a matter of science, teaching ID in science class, is next to foolish if evidence explains it. Philosophy is the only place that idea should escape with being taught.

I would enjoy hearing your thoughts while acknowledging the evidence within your response and how it affects your response.[/quote]

Considering you are okay with people manipulating What God already formed in the womb with genetic manipulation, your credibility and passion for this Diary, is already tainted to me, because you are saying Men are allowed to play God, which means you have already taken the mark of the beast!

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, i wasnt talking to you, but to Alycin.

but, everyone here knows that you have no credibility JIMSH.
so i want to get rid of diseases. who could argue with that? you are arguing with science, you are blaspheming God. science is from God. you are deluded, and everyone here knows it but you (a hallmark of delusion), and if you persist in your ignorance and contempt for God's creation, you are also evil and will be taken out for your pride.
you might be able to escape, if you stay sincere, which i imagine is not possible, but you would at least fall into the sin of presumption, that you know better than God's science despite facts.

nice way to dodge the facts, as usualy with irrational tirades, JIMSH.

I'm sure you'd have been arguing the earth is the center of the universe, as any good christian bible believer would believe, too.

Edited May 18, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1532329' date='May 18 2008, 12:06 PM']well, i wasnt talking to you, but to Alycin.

but, everyone here knows that you have no credibility JIMSH.
so i want to get rid of diseases. who could argue with that? you are arguing with science, you are blaspheming God. science is from God. you are deluded, and everyone here knows it but you (a hallmark of delusion), and if you persist in your ignorance and contempt for God's creation, you are also evil and will be taken out for your pride.
you might be able to escape, if you stay sincere, which i imagine is not possible, but you would at least fall into the sin of presumption, that you know better than God's science despite facts.

nice way to dodge the facts, as usualy with irrational tirades, JIMSH.

I'm sure you'd have been arguing the earth is the center of the universe, as any good christian bible believer would believe, too.[/quote]

The Prophets had not credibility either. Jerimiah preached to a nation, and nobody repented, so I'm okay with that.

And now, I'm Blaspheming God! LOL! ! I would be very careful when you say that, because you are now saying something is of God, and if it isn't, God will hold you accountable for that statement. But I have come to expect that from you Diary, as you are not what you say you are.

Yes, good Science, like Kent Holvind's science, is from God, and should be believed. When I think of God and how he made everything in 6 days, I stand back in amazement of that power! WOW! God is powerful and amazing!

I will not back down from the words of the Bible that I trust. People can twist and turn God's word every way they want, and try to prove their way is right, but when it comes down to it Diary, everybody who twists and turns God word to mean anything they want, to prove themselves right, are going to find Jesus opening a Seal Judgment against them. I would recommend you to get ready for that, to repent, but you're not going to accept that, as you are the one who is proud your intelligence!

[Farsight one]

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1532338' date='May 18 2008, 01:23 PM']Kent Holvind's science[/quote]
Hovind? And what makes what he says credible? Why do you trust his claims over that of people with actual degrees? - especially since the VERY reason that Hovind is in jail is for FRAUD.

His science is not good. In fact, his ignorance of science proves that he never even could have been a high school science teacher like he claimed. You follow a liar.

You want to know how far off his "science" is?
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEZTdOlGss"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEZTdOlGss[/url] (profanity within)
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFeVwuJB7I"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFeVwuJB7I[/url]
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvprBLhJx_o"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvprBLhJx_o[/url]
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKdfeP1sGIg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKdfeP1sGIg[/url]
(the user's got a lot more where those came from)

Tell me, since you're so quick to use the bible to teach you science, do you also use it to teach you mathematics? Because the bible says that Pi = 3 even, not 3.14159~

[dairygirl4u2c]

LOL! JIMSH . it blows my mind.
one in two will be condmened, if you don't change, you will be condemned.
man, i can't try to continue serving you with your own medicine, i feel dirty and very very very very evil when i try. JIMSH, the earth is older than 6000 years. i am calling you out, so God help me. I reserve a shred of doubt, like any rational person would, which i'm sure you don't reserve any doubt... wow, you are, wow.

if science says something irrefutably (here, close to it), i'd rather say the bible is not to be taken literally, or even that it has error. right now, it just at worst should not be taken literally. the bible doesn't say the bible is true anyway, i defy you to show otherwise. i defy you with a lot of things, but you're not one to take on rational debate, man, it blows my mind. the bible says to be willing to defend your beliefs, and that's something you fail to do.... whining isn't debating.

i say what farsight says... you can find a lune anywhere, to believe anything for you. you're just trying to substnatitiate your arguments as if it's on equal par or better, which it's clearly not. i can find a hitler to say the halocust should occur, that doesnt mean it's an equal argument.

i used to think my school should teach ID, the only reason i would think other's can decide for themselves is that because it's moral to let others decide things that are debatable. now, i know better. it's called humility dude, it's called science, it's called not being proud to the facts.
wow.

Edited May 18, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

with that said, i had some interesting ideas, about how there's newtonian physics, and then relativity... there could be relativity such that the first part of the universe was faster which in our time was a day etc. just random ideas.

it'd be more rational, to say that God planted all this stuff to trick us in several days, than to insist what JIMSH is insisting bout the date of things etc.

i do even hold osme doubt, that maybe God planted us here and we didn't evolve unlike the facts suggest. i might hold that God planted different species etc. i say that based on some scientific reservations etc, but really that link i posed has all the transitions for a lot of species, it's hard to debate. but i certainly do not think the earth is 6000 years old. it blows my mind.

Edited May 18, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Adam was created on Day 6, so there were 5 days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).

So a simple calculation is:

5 days
+ ~2000 years
+ ~4000 years
______________
~6000 years[/quote]

i'm still trying to figure this stuff out, as much you it blows my mind, i am examining it..

there's way to many ways for even a conservative christian to take things than to be deceived by JIMSH.

JIMSH's only salvation is i thikn he might be sincere, though it's hard for me to comprehend how. his behavior out of anyone else would be very serious. i guess there's a lune born every second.

Edited May 18, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

I've only one response to all the talk about my mental stability!

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=80046&view=findpost&p=1532618"]Outdo the person above you[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

Glad it amused you.

I don't really care about all the insults, because they're not true!

[Veridicus]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1532317' date='May 18 2008, 11:48 AM']I wasn't referring to that, I was referring to JIMSH.
It would be wise of you to read the links I posted, and then get back with me. Either concede your ignorance, as I did when I saw the evidence, or insist that ID be taught because of how fast we evolved, or attack the gaps that do exist.

If you knew the evidence, attacking the gaps is not scientifically sound, as far as jumpint the gun to ID. As a matter of science, teaching ID in science class, is next to foolish if evidence explains it. Philosophy is the only place that idea should escape with being taught.

I would enjoy hearing your thoughts while acknowledging the evidence within your response and how it affects your response.[/quote]


I just earned my BS in Biology from a school wth a solid Biology Dept. and I'll just say that evolution is the basis for all of the biological sciences. Nothing makes coherent scientific sense outside of an evolutionary perspective. And yes, the more we study 'irreducibly complex' things, the more we realize that there is reducible complexity. However, there are lots and lots of complex systems in place which haven't even begun to be analyzed in a reducible way. I was a staunch evolutionist (although, yes I am definitely a theist and catholic) up until this last year of school. After completing my senior synthesis course in 'Organic Evolution,' I have to admit that I wasn't particularly satisfied with the evidence that was presented for the evolution of organic life.

The fossil record is impressive, but I feel many parts of it are of questionable certitude. I mean we can find fossils within certain geographic strata and then attempt to radiometrically date them with accuracy...but at the end of the day, it falls to an evolutionary biologist to decide where to place this fossil in the greater record. So you find something that is 'froggily fishy' So as an evolutionary biologist with a priori assumptions about the nature of fossils and using probably accurate dating information...you place the 'froggy fish' right between fish and amphibians on your fossil record cladogram. But that placement is not truly 'testable' and relies on the expertise and 'unbiased' opinion of an evolutionary biologist. Now I like to assume the professional detachment of scientists (after all I AM one), but I recognize that they are human and want to demonstrate something important in their work before they kick the bucket. Seriously, every time a hominid femur is found its "the missing link" or the "oldest human ancestor"...but 15 years later in the silence of anonymity the scientific community realizes its not that special. But the early media frenzy belies the vested interest of the evolutionary biologists involved.

There is no way to actually know with certitude whether this 'froggy fish' actually existed as an intermediate form between fish and amphibians...all we know is that it existed at an appropriate period of time and has derived characteristics it shares with frogs and fish. We place it between fish and frogs as our own INFERENCE from the data available...despite the potentially epistemological issues of said data.

Another example I was particularly dissatisfied with was an experiment used as evidence for 'intermediate forms' that were beneficial. In this experiment, stone flies were examined and prompted to surface skim across the water. These stone flies were very, very primitive non-flying water surface insects similar to the insects that that scientists believe gave rise to the earliest flying insects. Well, in this experiment they shot bursts of air at these bugs to demonstrate they they could induce short distance/time 'flights' above the water. That's it...it was presented as conclusive evidence for the existence and usefulness of a 'half-wing' intermediate form. The only problem is that the experiment did NOT actually show that these short flights (and only like 4 of 80 bugs actually 'flew') had any differential reproductive advantage over non-flying stoneflies. Without empirically demonstrating this latter effect, this study is nothing more than a shoddy inference from a shoddily designed experiment. Furthermore, it was never addressed or hypothesized why if possessing such a powerfully adapted intermediate wing, the stoneflies have not evolved to fly in the last 2 million years (stone flies have evolved very little over time).

The genetic evidence for evolution is fairly powerful...but again, DNA is only stable so long post-mortem and environmental decay prevents applicable DNA analysis of many fossil forms. Therefore analysis is mostly limited to interspecies comparisons to determine relative relatedness on a cladogram. And the nice thing is that the DNA evidence basically supports the fossil evidence for recent speciation.

I guess really what I'm trying to say is that evolution is a pretty good theory (and really the only theory supported by a wide range of scientific fields)...the only problem is how it has been propelled by shoddy inferences and biased scientists. I'm not saying that these bad inferences completely undermine the reality of the theory. I just don't think that non-scientists should be citing scientific evidence for evolution until they have studied it well enough to recognize its epistemological limitations.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Veridicus

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1533161' date='May 18 2008, 09:58 PM']I just earned my BS in Biology from a school wth a solid Biology Dept. and I'll just say that evolution is the basis for all of the biological sciences. Nothing makes coherent scientific sense outside of an evolutionary perspective. And yes, the more we study 'irreducibly complex' things, the more we realize that there is reducible complexity. However, there are lots and lots of complex systems in place which haven't even begun to be analyzed in a reducible way. I was a staunch evolutionist (although, yes I am definitely a theist and catholic) up until this last year of school. After completing my senior synthesis course in 'Organic Evolution,' I have to admit that I wasn't particularly satisfied with the evidence that was presented for the evolution of organic life.

The fossil record is impressive, but I feel many parts of it are of questionable certitude. I mean we can find fossils within certain geographic strata and then attempt to radiometrically date them with accuracy...but at the end of the day, it falls to an evolutionary biologist to decide where to place this fossil in the greater record. So you find something that is 'froggily fishy' So as an evolutionary biologist with a priori assumptions about the nature of fossils and using probably accurate dating information...you place the 'froggy fish' right between fish and amphibians on your fossil record cladogram. But that placement is not truly 'testable' and relies on the expertise and 'unbiased' opinion of an evolutionary biologist. Now I like to assume the professional detachment of scientists (after all I AM one), but I recognize that they are human and want to demonstrate something important in their work before they kick the bucket. Seriously, every time a hominid femur is found its "the missing link" or the "oldest human ancestor"...but 15 years later in the silence of anonymity the scientific community realizes its not that special. But the early media frenzy belies the vested interest of the evolutionary biologists involved.

There is no way to actually know with certitude whether this 'froggy fish' actually existed as an intermediate form between fish and amphibians...all we know is that it existed at an appropriate period of time and has derived characteristics it shares with frogs and fish. We place it between fish and frogs as our own INFERENCE from the data available...despite the potentially epistemological issues of said data.

Another example I was particularly dissatisfied with was an experiment used as evidence for 'intermediate forms' that were beneficial. In this experiment, stone flies were examined and prompted to surface skim across the water. These stone flies were very, very primitive non-flying water surface insects similar to the insects that that scientists believe gave rise to the earliest flying insects. Well, in this experiment they shot bursts of air at these bugs to demonstrate they they could induce short distance/time 'flights' above the water. That's it...it was presented as conclusive evidence for the existence and usefulness of a 'half-wing' intermediate form. The only problem is that the experiment did NOT actually show that these short flights (and only like 4 of 80 bugs actually 'flew') had any differential reproductive advantage over non-flying stoneflies. Without empirically demonstrating this latter effect, this study is nothing more than a shoddy inference from a shoddily designed experiment. Furthermore, it was never addressed or hypothesized why if possessing such a powerfully adapted intermediate wing, the stoneflies have not evolved to fly in the last 2 million years (stone flies have evolved very little over time).

The genetic evidence for evolution is fairly powerful...but again, DNA is only stable so long post-mortem and environmental decay prevents applicable DNA analysis of many fossil forms. Therefore analysis is mostly limited to interspecies comparisons to determine relative relatedness on a cladogram. And the nice thing is that the DNA evidence basically supports the fossil evidence for recent speciation.

I guess really what I'm trying to say is that evolution is a pretty good theory (and really the only theory supported by a wide range of scientific fields)...the only problem is how it has been propelled by shoddy inferences and biased scientists. I'm not saying that these bad inferences completely undermine the reality of the theory. I just don't think that non-scientists should be citing scientific evidence for evolution until they have studied it well enough to recognize its epistemological limitations.[/quote]
[i]Very well said.[/i] My BS was in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

I have a question for you.

You said: "The only problem is that the experiment did NOT actually show that these short flights (and only like 4 of 80 bugs actually 'flew') had any differential reproductive advantage over non-flying stoneflies."

What if an old predator had an easier time catching the non-flying ones? What if an environmental change favored the flying ones for a period of time? More importantly, did they even need a reproductive advantage? What if it was plain old genetic/allelic drift? There does not have to be an advantage. Random selection can result in dramatic evolutionary changes.

IMHO, I think some scientists are so desperate to have answers for everything that they would rather be satisfied with shoddy inferences than admit that they don't know everything. I don't think they are the majority... but they do stand out.

Do you also see this attitude and do you think it feeds to problem?

[kenrockthefirst]

In [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science"]this[/url] definition of science is, the following are relevant to this discussion:
[list]
[*]systematic knowledge of the physical or material world [i]gained through observation and experimentation[/i]
[*]knowledge, as of facts or principles; [i]knowledge gained by systematic study[/i]
[/list][emphasis added]

For the purposes of this discussion, we also need to be reminded of what is the [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific%20method"]scientific method[/url]:
[list]
[*]a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is [i]empirically tested[/i]
[/list][emphasis added]

Finally, let's define the term "[url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory"]theory[/url]" is the scientific context:
[list]
[*]a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
[/list]
So, the question isn't whether the Theory of Evolution is "true" and Creationism / ID "false," or vice-versa. The question is whether either are science. Given that Creationism / ID [i]prima facie[/i] rely on a) a "Creator" and b) assume that that "Creator" as a prime mover created life, and that there is no need for further investigation on those points, therefore by definition Creationism / ID cannot be characterized as science, and accordingly should not be taught in science class. Please note that this does not mean that Creationism / ID are not true, simply that they're not science.