Calling all Creationists!

[Master Mason]

I've already given you numerous sources that rebut any such assertion but apparently you are unable to read or comprehend them.

Since you seam to only want to call people that disagree with you names, I'll just bow out before I feel compelled do do similiar.

 

[LotsOfQuestions]

As Christians, by allowing...
*the Ten Commandments to be taken out of our goverment buildings,
*prayer taken out of our schools (even quite reflection time),
*the end of the Pledge of Allegience because it mentions "God"...

And this is exactly why it is so very, very important to keep those ten commandments out of the government buildings, keep prayer out of public schools, keep creationism out of the science classroom (ok to discuss it in context with discussing other religion's beliefs), keep God out of the pledge of the allegience and keep those that govern by their faith out of any government position.

I believe in every aspect of evolution from the big bang theory. I also believe that some higher power guides it, in my case, God.

What I also believe is that this country is made up of more than just Christians and that our public buildings, our public classrooms and our Pledge of the Allegience to the flag of the United States of America should be reflective of all the citizens of the US. One religious group should not be favored over any other group of United States Citizens.

Thank God most of our lawmakers fully understand the separation of church and state.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Since you seam to only want to call people that disagree with you names, I'll just bow out before I feel compelled do do similiar.

I didn't call you any names.

I gave you numerous sources that explain how scientists use the term "scientific theory". You insist that that is not how the term is used with no evidence to back up that claim. Either you didn't read the sources, you didn't understand them, or you simply think that your opinion is better evidence than actual sources that explain how scientists use the terms.

It is as if you said "legally the term "statutory rape" applies to sex had between a person over age 18 and a person under age 18" and then showed me numerous legal codes which demonstrate that. And I replied by saying, "No. Statutory rape is when a person has sex with an animal." If I said that and would not relent in the face of your sources wouldn't you assume I wasn't reading them, couldn't understand them, or was just being stubborn to get a rise out of you?

What else could possibly be said if I just dogmatically insisted that legally "statutory rape" = sex with an animal. That is where I feel this conversation has gone.

 

[themarquis]

the only thing that is relevant is how the scientific community defines and uses its own terminology. What is not relevant is how people colloquially use these terms, how the media or religious organizations use them, how non-scientists use them, or how how a non-specialized dictionary or encyclopedia define them. It just does not matter.

the POINT is that to the scientific community (or the portion of it which does work relevant to the biological sciences), the validity of (what you might call) "the law of gravity" is absolutely equivalent to (what you might call) "the theory of evolution". There is NO difference between the two in terms of the degree to which they are understood to be scientifically valid.

That is not to say that there is not, as there is in any issue or field within the sciences, an ongoing process of discussion, disagreement, and debate about specific aspects of evolution and evolutionary history. This is as true of evolution as it is true of gravity. Actually, believe it or not, there is lots about gravity we are still actively investigating and battling over (for example, unified field theory)!

I remember that in grade school and junior high school (and maybe even high school biology), they taught us this (incorrect or at the very least terminologically sloppy) division of "theory", "hypothesis", "law" that people are parroting over and over again here. Then you go to college or do some reading and learn REAL science

 

[Master Mason]

Thank God most of our lawmakers fully understand the separation of church and state.

Is that why they open and close both conventions with prayer? As well as both houses of congress each day?

 

[Laura]

I am not ignorent about anything, not matter how much you would like to call me names for disagreeing with you.

From the defintition above which you applauded " In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections" This means that they are not facts, but neither tenative or suject to correction. Facts are facts are Facts, in any time an in any way, they are not tenative nor are they subject to correction.

So again, do not tell me that a scientific theory is a fact, because it simply is not so.

Let me put it this way: evolution itself is not a theory. There is a theory about evolution which explains the observations of scientists, called the theory of evolution. Said theory doesn't attempt to defend or prove the existence of evolution because we know it exists. It explains evolution's intricacies. There is no equation, no way to "prove" this theory, unlike with gravity. Evolution is too broad.

And yes, scientific theories are based on an accumulation of facts. There are facets of the theory of evolution that have been expounded on with new information, such as the discovery of DNA a half a century ago. New information that has been gathered over the years has simply strengthened the theory and given us better understanding of how evolution works.

 

[TeresaNJ]

This is a very interesting thread!

 

[c4a]

Hence what we refer to as "gravity" in common language is both a law and theory which was my only point.

If someone is going to act as if scientific theories needn't be believed, then it seems gravity (at least the explanation of gravity if not the mathematical equations) is out the door as well.

Wrong. It is not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be...

Hypothesis= Educated guess until proven wrong.
Theory= Hypothesis (Educated guess) or a group of Hypothesis (educated guesses) no evidence proves it wrong, yet.
Law= A theory that has been proven correct. It answers "how", it does not answer "why". It is usually backed up by mathmatical data (an equation or equations). A law can be used in part of a theory to try to prove the theory has a basis (is correct). However, a hypothesis or a theory can not be used to prove the law.

A lot of people use the terms incorrectly. A theory still has a chance of being proven wrong. A law has undisputable proof that it is correct. The key word is undisputable.

As for Einstein's Theory of Relativity-it is a theory (not a law) because it includes SEVERAL assumptions that can not be proven. It includes Newton's Law of Gravity, Keppler's Law of Gravity, and a few others. Just because it includes facts does not make the Theory a law.


How can something be proven wrong and still be correct? By being a theory. (I made a funny. )

 

[smartestnumber5]

Wrong. It is not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be...

Hypothesis= Educated guess until proven wrong.
Theory= Hypothesis (Educated guess) or a group of Hypothesis (educated guesses) no evidence proves it wrong, yet.
Law= A theory that has been proven correct. It answers "how", it does not answer "why". It is usually backed up by mathmatical data (an equation or equations). A law can be used in part of a theory to try to prove the theory has a basis (is correct). However, a hypothesis or a theory can not be used to prove the law.

A lot of people use the terms incorrectly. A theory still has a chance of being proven wrong. A law has undisputable proof that it is correct. The key word is undisputable.

As for Einstein's Theory of Relativity-it is a theory (not a law) because it includes SEVERAL assumptions that can not be proven. It includes Newton's Law of Gravity, Keppler's Law of Gravity, and a few others. Just because it includes facts does not make the Theory a law.


How can something be proven wrong and still be correct? By being a theory. (I made a funny. )

Could you please find me a legitimate scientific source that says that a theory becomes a law when it is proven true?

ETA: How could it possibly be the case that a theory becomes a law when you are saying that a law explains how and a theory explains why. How could a theory (which explains why) suddenly become something that explains how just by being proven true?

 

[Master Mason]

We didn't evolve from apes. Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Wow you say that like you know without a doubt.

Because it happens to be a fact.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html

Let me put it this way: evolution itself is not a theory. There is a theory about evolution which explains the observations of scientists, called the theory of evolution. Said theory doesn't attempt to defend or prove the existence of evolution because we know it exists. It explains evolution's intricacies. There is no equation, no way to "prove" this theory, unlike with gravity. Evolution is too broad.

And yes, scientific theories are based on an accumulation of facts. There are facets of the theory of evolution that have been expounded on with new information, such as the discovery of DNA a half a century ago. New information that has been gathered over the years has simply strengthened the theory and given us better understanding of how evolution works.

The three quotes above are what started me in this discussion. You stated that it is a fact, when it is a theory. Theories are not facts, they may be supported by facts, but they are not themselves facts.

Also if you look at the source you cited, the word used was Believe. Believe is not indictative of fact either, it is as stated a belief.

I am not now, nor have I ever said that the theory is incorrect, simply that it is not a fact.

 

[shortbun]

How can you be Christian & not a Creationist ??? That makes absolutely no sense at all ......

Maybe not to you. It makes perfect sense to me. I've fought with many people about Genesis. I consider it a fable. Imho, a lot of the stories in the Bible are stories that had been handed down from ancient civilizations and retold to support the beliefs of the first Christians.

Oh, and the scientists I know and love say a 'theory' is considered proven fact in the science world so that's what I'm going with.

 

[Lintasare]

Maybe not to you. It makes perfect sense to me. I've fought with many people about Genesis. I consider it a fable. Imho, a lot of the stories in the Bible are stories that had been handed down from ancient civilizations and retold to support the beliefs of the first Christians.

Oh, and the scientists I know and love say a 'theory' is considered proven fact in the science world so that's what I'm going with.

I just want to say I agree with you on Genesis and other Biblical stories. I too think that they are just that...stories handed down from generation to generation and culture to culture.

 

[Mikelly1221]

I really don't want to argue semantics about what a theory & a law are. I really think those debates are beside the point. I would like someone to tell me or guide me to find the evidence where the theory of evolution gains enough credence to become a theory. I would assume that there are some?

I found a website that gives the short proof of evolution. Here's its points, in a nutshell:

1) All living creatures must have a living parent. Living creatures must come from other living creatures.

2) Some living creatures are very different from some others.

3) Simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones. The website author cites archaelogical findings, which I have not verified.

What do you evolutionists think-is this the case in a nutshell? Frankly, I think people have been told that evolution is a fact for so long that they just believe it without checking out the facts behind the theory.

Here's another question: Why are evolutionists so afraid of Intelligent Design being taught alongside evolution in school? Offer out the two viewpoints and have the students debate the merits of both sides. Surely the one with the most merit will win out? The truth has nothing to fear-if evolution is the truth as you claim, then let it stand on its merits.


PS. Here's the evolution website I cited: http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

 

[Teresa Pitman]

I don't know if I can explain evolution "in a nutshell" because there are a lot of complexities to it, but I'll try.

When living things reproduce, the DNA in their reproductive cells copies itself to create the DNA code in the new cells (some are asexual, so there is just one parent, some have two parents and therefore DNA from two parents combine in the new cells).

The DNA doesn't always reproduce perfectly and so you get mutations. Some of these are harmful (making the new living being less likely to survive) and some are beneficial. Whether the mutation is good or bad depends in part on the environment. For example, a mutation to have less fur might be good for an animal in a warm environment but bad for one in a colder environment.

Plants and animals with beneficial mutations are more likely to survive and more likely to pass these mutations on to their offspring. Some animals may be able to move into new environments thanks to their mutations. In this new environment, different mutations may prove beneficial and over many generations, the animal becomes much different than the original ancestor.
(As a kind of example of this, see how humans have bred many different breeds of dogs by choosing those with specific characteristics they wanted to reproduce. We have Pekingese, chihuahuas, greyhounds and Siberian huskies all coming from the same common ancestors, and these different breeds have been accomplished in a very short period of time. While this is not evolution, I think it shows the potential for divergence.)

Evolution doesn't happen in a planned out way, with a goal. It just happens. So you can have, for example, an animal that exists in one environment and an animal that has evolved from the first animal but exists in another environment or has a slightly different niche in the same environment. One doesn't have to disappear or become extinct for the other to be able to exist. But sometimes the environment has changed (think of the ice ages, and other known periods of change on the earth) so that only the mutated animals (or plants) can survive. (Again, although not really an evolutionary example, think of wolves and dogs. Dogs descended from wolves, and are now quite different, but both wolves and dogs are still around. Wolves live in a "wild" environment and dogs are adapted to a "domestic" environment. In many places, because people have taken over the wilderness and turned it into cities and farms, the wolves are not surviving but the dogs are doing just fine.)

We see evidence for this in the fossil record and in biology.

There is much more to it that this, and considerable research and work has been done on all aspects of evolution. An interesting book on evolution that I read recently is Richard Dawkins "The Ancestor's Tale." Might be one place to start if you'd like to know more.

Why do I think creationism shouldn't be taught in schools? Because it is religion-based, and I don't think religion should be part of school curricula. If you are going to teach a course on comparative religion and want to mention this as something some religious people believe, fine. But it simply isn't science and shouldn't be part of the science courses.

Teresa

 

[LotsOfQuestions]

Here's another question: Why are evolutionists so afraid of Intelligent Design being taught alongside evolution in school? Offer out the two viewpoints and have the students debate the merits of both sides. Surely the one with the most merit will win out? The truth has nothing to fear-if evolution is the truth as you claim, then let it stand on its merits.

I have no problems with Intelligent Design being discussed in its proper context.

It is not science, therefore it should not be taught or discussed in a science class.

And not only is it not a science, it is one particular religion's viewpoint. Children in the classroom that do not believe in Christianity should never have it shoved down their throats.

It is a belief of the Christian Religion, so could properly be discussed in a classroom that is comparing and contrasting the different religions of the Worlds and how they view creation.

If parents want their children to learn Creationism along with or instead of Evolution, their church or a religiously affiliated private school would be excellent places to explore this belief.

 

[jimmiej]

I am a creationist in that I believe that God created the heavens and the earth as it says in the Bible. However, I don't believe that the creationist date of the earth being approx. 10,000 years old is necessarily correct. I don't believe we really know how old the earth is.

same here.

ETA: I believe Genesis is absolutely 100% true. However, the Bible is clear that God's "time" is not the same as ours.

 

[bigtinkfun]

I believe that God created everything, and that he made the universe discoverable. The means he gave us to uncover His Creation and how it works and fits together is science. The means He gave us to discover Him is Faith.

Figuring out His Works keeps us busy and off the streets. I believe that Faith and Science are meant to be complementary.

 

[Mikelly1221]

Thank you Teresa for your response. It does explain your viewpoint. However, in your dog analogy, the various breeds are still dogs. In your mutation analogy, the animal is still the animal. The animal I always think of when I think of mutations is the fish that lives its whole life in a cave and so does not have any eyes. It may produce fish with no eyes as a mutation, but it's still a fish. I think we can all agree that animal life on Earth is incredibly complex and diverse-the odds of all this happening by itself just by chance are astronomical.

LotsofQuestions, could you tell me where I said I was going to "shove religion down children's throats?" What I said was that evolution was given as an alternative explanation to creationism/Intelligent Design. Which religion did I mention? I offered a debate, in typical debate format. So, are there no debates in the scientific world? Finally, creationism/Intelligent Design and evolution attempt to answer the same question: "How did life begin?" They are both valid attempts to answer the question and they both deserve a seat at the table of ideas, not thrust in a corner to be ignored.

 

[Mikelly1221]

I believe that Faith and Science are meant to be complementary.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Here's another question: Why are evolutionists so afraid of Intelligent Design being taught alongside evolution in school? Offer out the two viewpoints and have the students debate the merits of both sides. Surely the one with the most merit will win out? The truth has nothing to fear-if evolution is the truth as you claim, then let it stand on its merits.

I do teach about something a little bit like intelligent design--in philosophy class when we do arguments for and against God's existence. (The original philosophical intelligent design arguments go back to Aquinas in the 1200s and William Paley in the 1800s. And as a philosophical argument, Palely's argument is open to serious objections.) I have no problem with this being taught in philosophy class--I teach it myself! But I do not see how the view can be said to count as science since some of its proponents admit that it can't be checked by experimental evidence and it fails to meet many of the criteria philosophers of science use to demarcate science and non-science:

* Consistent
* Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
* Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
* Progressive (refines previous theories)
* Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)


Also, I've never quite understood how the intelligent design view is supposed to be presented. Who is this intelligent designer after all--how is she/he/it to be characterized? Surely there is no reason to suppose if there is an intelligent designer it is anything like the Judeo-Christian God or is a supernatural being at all. (Indeed, this in itself presents a puzzle. How can science tell us anything about that which is supernatural?) It could be the flying spaghetti monster. It could be aliens from another universe. It could be an all-powerful evil demon.

Do all of those possibilities have to be brought up and explored in class? (Would anybody be happy with their kid coming home and saying "My biology teacher told us how people came to exist today--the flying spaghetti monster aliens designed the universe and all the natural forces that led to our existence?) What about all of the philosophical arguments that demonstrate that the existence of a higher being is unlikely if not impossible--must they be talked about in biology class? Surely we can't go telling kids that maybe an evil demon created the universe without also giving them all of the counter evidence against the possibility right? But the counter-evidence is not empirical but philosophical--so now it looks like biology class is becoming philosophy class.

And where do we draw the line if we let in intelligent design. If it is allowed to be taught as science in science class as science, then what about other views that some people have about science? Some scientists don't believe that HIV causes AIDS. Should we teach that as an alternative to the accepted scientific view that HIV is the cause of AIDS? If kids take a psychology class, does the course have to give equal time to the scientology view that psychology/psychiatry is quackery?