The Teaching Of Creationism

[rynner2]

Check this out from the web site of "Noah's Ark Zoo Farm, Failand Road, Wraxall, Bristol, BS48 1PG" :-

The alternative to Neo-Darwinism is, strangely, too difficult for some to admit; that we have a Creator who still sustains and directs His World and Universe. But He is good. In the words of C.S. Lewis “Is He safe? Oh no. But He is good”.

Source:- http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/educat ... n-biology/

Hmmm...

Difficult to admit, or too weird to accept?

(As for C.S.Lewis, that's just an assertion with no evidence.)

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Utah House Kills Evolution Teaching Bill

By JENNIFER DOBNER, Associated Press Writer Mon Feb 27, 9:40 PM ET

SALT LAKE CITY - Public schools won't have to change the way they teach evolution, after the House on Monday gutted, and then killed, a bill that would have required science courses to mention alternative theories.

Senate Bill 96 failed in the House on a 28-46 vote, after a lengthy debate that saw the bill changed twice.

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, had said it was time to rein in teachers who were teaching that man had descended from apes, and rattling the faith of students. The Senate passed the measure 16-12.

House sponsor Rep. Jim Ferrin, R-Orem, started Monday's debate with a substitute bill, which removed the phrase about teaching the "origins of life." Ferrin said the phrase should come out because current state curricula only includes teaching the origins of species, not human evolution.

Ferrin had no trouble getting support for his substitute, but House lawmakers weren't as eager to support the bill's underlying premise.

Rep. Scott Wyatt, R-Logan, said he feared passing the bill would force the state to then address hundreds of other scientific theories — "from Quantum physics to Freud" — in the same manner.

"I would leave you with two questions," Wyatt said. "If we decide to weigh in on this part, are we going to begin weighing in on all the others and are we the correct body to do that?"

House Majority Whip Rep. Steve Urquhart suggested amending the bill to leave it with just one sentence that read, "The State Board of Education shall establish curriculum requirements, consistent with Subsection 1, relating to scientific instruction of students on the origins of species."

"I think it's appropriate to leave this up to the Board of Education," Urquhart said.

Ferrin argued against the amendment, saying that he wasn't trying to stop the teaching of evolution in schools, nor suggesting that religious thought should be taught.

"However, if that scientific instruction goes to the origin of species, when it postulates that humans, apes, snakes, cows whales or whatever all evolved from a common ancestor. Then I would say, if that can be empirically proven, let's teach it as such," Ferrin said. "But if it's merely an inference, then let's teach is as inference."

The amendment passed 44-31 and was followed quickly by the vote that killed the bill itself.

Buttars monitored the debate from the House floor. Afterward he said he was disappointed.

Buttars said he doesn't believe the defeat means that most House members think Darwin's theory of evolution is correct.

"Absolutely not. It means the vote was wrong in my opinion," Buttars said. "I don't believe that anybody in there really wants their kids to be taught that their great-grandfather was an ape."

_______

On the Net:

http://www.le.state.ut.us/2006/htmdoc/s ... 096S03.htm

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

Creationists say that modern Darwinism is impossible for 2 fundamental reasons:

1. The first life a bacterium is too complex to arrive by itself out of chemicals. See “Bacteria unpacked”

2. Mutations are not observed to add genetic information; only to replicate or repeat or subtract it. See “Mutations”

Is this bollocks, or something? Let's look at the points:

1. I dunno about bacteria, there's this from Wikipedia:

"In 2002, scientists succeeded in constructing an artificial and "functioning" (able to infect and kill mice) Polio virus. Other viruses have since been synthesized. These experiments do not qualify as examples of abiogenesis, though, since viruses, are considered to fail to meet the standard biological criteria for life many do not consider them to be lifeforms. The organic makeup of life and the makeup viruses are not the same. Viruses feed of life and rarely live outside it's host for long.

Still, proponents of the idea of abiogenesis cite these results in support of their position, stating that both "non-living" viruses and "living" bacteria are solely "molecular machines" of different complexity. Many of them expect scientists to be able to synthesize the latter when the necessary technology has advanced to a sufficient level, thus proving the possibility of abiogenesis."

When it comes down to it, 'life' may already have been created through artificial means - the only problem, as it stands, is one of definition.

2. In which case, the animals taken aboard Noah's Ark (of which there is supposed to only a male/female pair of each species) only had a couple of millenia to evolve without an overabundance of recessive genes killing them all off with congenital diseases.

 

[filcee]

Check this out from the web site of "Noah's Ark Zoo Farm, Failand Road, Wraxall, Bristol, BS48 1PG" :-...
Source:- http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/educat ... n-biology/

Is it just me, or does that quote read like something KatHakSung would write? Slightly better apparent command of English, but the same sort of feel to it.

Sorry, I've got nothing more constructive to add...

 

[FelixAntonius]

Check this out from the web site of "Noah's Ark Zoo Farm, Failand Road, Wraxall, Bristol, BS48 1PG" :-...
Source:- http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/educat ... n-biology/

Is it just me, or does that quote read like something KatHakSung would write? Slightly better apparent command of English, but the same sort of feel to it.

Sorry, I've got nothing more constructive to add...

I don't know filcee, but I notice that the source I gave has already been removed/revised & seems to have been replaced with:-

Animal classification
Many animals are clearly related. Domestic cats, for example are like very small lions. Horses, zebras and donkeys are all related. How many basic kinds of creature are there? What are their characteristics? When did they first appear in the fossil record? This display answers those questions.

What are the limits of relatedness?

Palaeontologists agree that mammals appear “rather suddenly” (Niles Elridge) in the fossil record, and mainly as the families we know today. Birds also occur mainly as a sudden appearance in the Tertiary strata, again mainly as we would recognise them today.

Under our proposal that the fossil record records the recolonisation of the world after Noah’s flood, taking at least a few thousand, but possibly 17,000 years to lay down, there may be many classified families related to other families within basic “kinds” created by God at Creation. We have used the latest taxonomic(body plan) and phylogenic (DNA) research to produce this classification.

Our proposed “kinds” or “baramin” (Hebrew) are found as follows on the Mammals, Birds, Reptiles and Amphibians pages. Many are now extinct (these are listed in brown type while the living groups are in blue type). All the originally created animals would have been created with enormous capacity to spread and change by natural selection into other species. This unlike Darwinism, which requires the gaining of genetic information over generations by “mutation” (this is not what happens in mutations, which are genetic repeats or ‘mistakes’). Rather this is the opposite - species lose some genetic information and select other hidden information as different species arise, irreversibly, within a kind. We have shown against each grouping the main distinguishing features that makes each group distinct from another group.

Source:- http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/index.php?s=creation

It continues on, through: "Times before the flood", "Are the genealogies complete?", "Can we believe Genesis?" & "Creation Biology".

Maybe I'm getting paranoid, but it seems as if they are changing the layout of their site every week, the moment I find their statement on creationism, it's deleted &/or revised & replaced!!!!

 

[Timble2]

Maybe I'm getting paranoid, but it seems as if they are changing the layout of their site every week, the moment I find their statement on creationism, it's deleted &/or revised & replaced!!!!

Obviously it's evolving...

 

[rynner2]

Maybe I'm getting paranoid, but it seems as if they are changing the layout of their site every week, the moment I find their statement on creationism, it's deleted &/or revised & replaced!!!!

Obviously it's evolving...

Oh, the irony!

But at least they are using some language that is congruent with modern scientific usage ("We have used the latest taxonomic(body plan) and phylogenic (DNA) research to produce this classification."), but the use of other phrases like "Under our proposal that the fossil record records the recolonisation of the world after Noah’s flood [...] there may be many classified families related to other families within basic “kinds” created by God at Creation" sits rather uncomfortably with it.

 

[ramonmercado]

Most Americans favor teaching evidence against evolution, poll shows

Mar. 07 (CWNews.com) - Most Americans believe that public schools should provide students with evidence both for and against the theory of Darwinian evolution, according to a new nationwide poll.

The survey by Zogby International found that 69% of all respondents believe that biology classes should explain both the theory of evolution and the scientific evidence against Darwin's claims. Only 21% of those surveyed said that teachers should confine themselves to teaching the Darwinian theory.

The Zogby poll was commissioned by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think-tank. "This poll shows widespread support for the idea that when biology teachers teach Darwin's theory of evolution they should present the scientific evidence that supports it as well as the evidence against it," said Casey Luskin, program officer for the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

Luskin said that while the Discovery Institute would not favor mandatory public-school instruction in the theory of intelligent design, "we do think it is constitutional for teachers to discuss it, precisely because the theory is based upon scientific evidence, not religious premises."

The poll also found strong support for introducing scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design alongside the instruction in evolutionary theory. Some 77% of the respondents agreed that the evidence of intelligent design should be presented to students, and a majority-- 51%-- agreed strongly. Only 19% disagreed.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=42829

 

[Rrose_Selavy]

Creationism to be in GCSE papers

Creationism to be in GCSE papers
Creationist theories about how the world was made are to be debated in GCSE science lessons in mainstream secondary schools in England.
The subject has been included in a new syllabus for biology produced by the OCR exam board, due out in September.

Critics say the matter should only be discussed in R.E. because there is a danger of elevating religious theories to the status of scientific ones.

The government insists creationism is not being taught as a subject.

The exam board says students need to understand the background to theories.

Its new "Gateway to Science" curriculum asks pupils to examine how organisms become fossilised.

Teachers are asked to "explain that the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time (e.g. creationist interpretation)".

Contentious

OCR, one of the three main exam boards in England, said that the syllabus was intended to make students aware of scientific controversy.

A spokesperson for the exam board said candidates needed to understand the social and historical context to scientific ideas both pre and post Darwin's theory of evolution.

"Candidates are asked to discuss why the opponents of Darwinism thought the way they did and how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence," he said.

"Creationism and 'intelligent design' are not regarded by OCR as scientific theories. They are beliefs that do not lie within scientific understanding."

The area is contentious, with critics claiming that inclusion of creationist or intelligent design theories in science syllabuses unduly elevates them.

James Williams, science course leader at Sussex University's school of education, told the Times Educational Supplement: "This opens a legitimate gate for the inclusion of creationism or intelligent design in science classes as if they were legitimate theories on a par with evolution fact and theory.

"I'm happy for religious theories to be considered in religious education, but not in science where consideration could lead to a false verification of their status as being equal to scientific theories."

The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which oversees the development of the national curriculum, in effect guiding exam boards, said discussions of "intelligent design" or "creationism" could take place in science classes.

The National Curriculum Online website says for science at Key Stage 4 (GCSE level): "Students should be taught how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence (for example Darwin's theory of evolution)."

Classes should also cover "ways in which scientific work may be affected by the context in which it takes place (for example, social, historical, moral, spiritual), and how these contexts may affect whether or not ideas are accepted."

A spokesperson for the Department for Education and Skills said: "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools and are not specified in the science curriculum".

In the United States, there have been court cases over what schools should teach.

Last month scientists there protested against a movement to teach intelligent design - the theory that life is so complex that it must be the work of a supernatural designer.

In December, a judge in Pennsylvania said it was unconstitutional to make teachers feature the concept of intelligent design in science lessons.

In England, the Emmanuel Schools Foundation, sponsored by Christian car dealer Sir Peter Vardy, has been criticised for featuring creationist theories in lessons in the three comprehensives it runs.

Sir Peter has said the schools present both Darwin's evolutionary theory and creationism.

In 2003, he said: "One is a theory, the other is a faith position. It is up to the children."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/e ... 793198.stm

Published: 2006/03/10 13:27:07 GMT

© BBC MMVI

 

[ramonmercado]

Evolution exhibit in Chicago challenges creationists


A Dicynodont synapsid
The cute cartoon characters that eat each other in a new educational video about natural selection seem benign enough, but they are part of a growing battle in the United States over the theory of evolution.

On Friday, Chicago's renowned Field Museum will become the latest institution to combat creationism with a new permanent exhibit detailing the process of evolution.

At a preview of the exhibit earlier this week, the Field's president said museums need to lead the defense of evolution because they don't face the same level of "intimidation" as schools.


A life-size reconstruction of the famous fossil of Lucy, one of the earliest members of our human family.
John McCarter also warned that the United States is in danger of losing its position as a technological leader because efforts to add the religiously-based theory of intelligent design to school curriculums is undermining the culture of scientific inquiry.

Though Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is accepted as fact among scientists, most Americans think otherwise.

In a nationwide Gallup poll released last fall, 53 percent of American adults agreed with the statement that God created humans in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it.

Thirty-one percent stood by the "intelligent design" stance that humans evolved over millions of years from other forms of life and God guided the process, while only 12 percent said humans have evolved from other forms of life and "God has no part."

While the Supreme Court has ruled that creationism cannot be forced into schools, it is nonetheless taught in classrooms and US President George W. Bush has said he supports teaching intelligent design to American students on the grounds of allowing differing schools of thought to contend.

The push to get intelligent design into schools suffered a serious setback in December when a Pennsylvania court ruled that it was a religious rather than a scientific theory and banned it from the state's classrooms.

But proponents have not given up the fight and are now pushing to force science teachers to "critically analyze" the shortcomings of Darwin's theory.

Unlike some museums which directly challenge intelligent design, the Field's Evolving Planet exhibit simply leaves God out of the equation.

"There may be places to debate the conflict between evolution and intelligent design but that's in a philosophy class, not in a scientific institution," Lance Grande, head of collections and research at the Field told AFP.

While there may be a number of "missing links" in evolution, that's more a result of holes in the fossilized record than a problem with the theory, Grande said.

"It takes very special conditions to become fossilized," he explained as he stood in front of the oldest complete fossil of a bat.

"The organism has to be buried under water before it's been torn apart by scavengers or rots and it has to be mineralized," he said.

The goal of the exhibit is to engage children and other visitors in the history of how life evolved on the planet.

It begins 4 billion years ago with single-cell organisms and leads visitors through to the present, which is described as the sixth period of mass extinction.

"I hope that will make people understand it's part of our responsibility as humans to minimize our impact on the planet," Gande said as a clock ticked toward 82, the number of species that become extinct every day as a result of human activity.

The artful layout and more than 150 interactive displays were designed to slow children down as they rushed to see the dinosaurs.

There are a number of gems in the collection's nearly 1,300 specimens.

The dinosaur hall includes representatives from every major group including the 18-foot-long youngster of a new dinosaur, Rapetosaurus, that was recently discovered in Madagascar.

The museum - which is one of the world's leading institutions of specimen-based research - also displays a remarkable collection of fossils, including a pregnant stingray and the oldest known fossil of cells whose DNA is contained within a nucleus.

An eerie life-like reproduction of Lucy - the skeleton known as the 'missing link' whose discovery in 1974 proved that humans walked upright before their brains developed - dominates the hominid display.

http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=11607

 

[rynner2]

Evolution exhibit in Chicago challenges creationists

Though Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is accepted as fact among scientists, most Americans think otherwise.

In a nationwide Gallup poll released last fall, 53 percent of American adults agreed with the statement that God created humans in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it.

In 2001 I posted this on this MB (and I think it bears repetition):

"Reading all this 'Creation Science' nonsense is making me lose the will to live. Its attempts to justify a heterogenous collection of old myth, legend, and history by pick'n'mix aspects of modern science are really futile, because the Bible itself is so inconsistent. I'll start at the 'beginning', Genesis, which is actually TWO separate and different creation myths. (And I'll end there - this subject doesn't deserve more effort.)

Most of the first story is in Genesis 1, and gives the familiar 'Seven days of creation' version. In this version, on Day 3, God creates grass, herbs, and fruit trees. Rather odd this, because it wasn't until the next day that he created the firmament, with the stars, sun and moon - how did these plants survive? On Day 5 he created sea creatures and birds, and on Day 6 he created the beasts of the earth; afterwards he made people ("male and female he created them"). The close of the story, where God rests on the 7th Day, comes in the first verses of Genesis 2.

Gen.2.v4 starts a different story. No 'Seven Days' here, just "the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens". Next he created man (not yet male and female), and planted the Garden of Eden for him to live in. This suggests that plants were created after man. Next God decides the man needs a helper, so he creates the animals, and lets the man name them. However, none of these was suitable as a helper for him, so next we get the creation of the woman from Adam's rib. (We are not told who named Adam, incidentally.)

So which story is true? 'Plants, sea creatures + birds, animals, people' OR 'Man, plants, animals, woman'?

How can anyone possibly build a 'science' on such a foundation? And why are Creation Scientists predominently from the USA? The idea is hardly thought worth discussing in Europe."

So next time you meet a creationist, ask him whether God created man or the animals first. Then point out that the Bible provides both (contradictory) answers!

 

[ramonmercado]

So next time you meet a creationist, ask him whether God created man or the animals first. Then point out that the Bible provides both (contradictory) answers!

no doubt he would point out that even the devil can cite scripture. they have that base covered!

 

[rynner2]

So next time you meet a creationist, ask him whether God created man or the animals first. Then point out that the Bible provides both (contradictory) answers!

no doubt he would point out that even the devil can cite scripture. they have that base covered!

Then my final subtle riposte would be to punch him in the gob!

 

[Soong2]

[quote="rynner]Then my final subtle riposte would be to punch him in the gob! [/quote]

God creates fist, God makes nose, God attaches fist to arm and finally God creates creationist to carry said nose around.



That sort of thing?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Then my final subtle riposte would be to punch him in the gob!

God creates fist, God makes nose, God attaches fist to arm and finally God creates creationist to carry said nose around.



That sort of thing?

All part of God's vast eternal plan...

 

[rynner2]

One of God's spokesmen replies:

Fears over teaching creationism

Schools should not be teaching the Bible-based version of the origins of the world, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said.
Asked in an interview with the Guardian if he was comfortable with the teaching of creationism in schools, Dr Rowan Williams said: "Ah, not very."

However, he said this did not mean that it should not be discussed.

A spokesman for the Department for Education said creationism was not taught as a subject in schools.

He said: "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum.

"The National Curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught that the fossil record is evidence for evolution, and how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction."

Dr Williams said: "I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories.

"Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories. It's not as if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said: 'Well, how am I going to explain all this... I know: in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'.

"So if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories. It's not what it's about."


Asked if it should be taught, he said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no. And that's different from saying - different from discussing, teaching what creation means.

Darwinism

"For that matter, it's not even the same as saying that Darwinism is - is the only thing that ought to be taught. My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."

The National Curriculum Online website says for science at Key Stage 4 (GCSE level): "Students should be taught how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence (for example Darwin's theory of evolution)."

Classes should also cover "ways in which scientific work may be affected by the context in which it takes place (for example, social, historical, moral, spiritual), and how these contexts may affect whether or not ideas are accepted."

OCR, one of the three main exam boards in England, recently announced that creationist theories were to be debated in GCSE science lessons in mainstream secondary schools in England.

Theory

The exam board said candidates needed to understand the social and historical context to scientific ideas both pre- and post-Darwin's theory of evolution.

A spokesman said: "Creationism and 'intelligent design' are not regarded by OCR as scientific theories. They are beliefs that do not lie within scientific understanding."

The area is contentious, with critics claiming that inclusion of creationist or intelligent design theories in science syllabuses unduly elevates them.

In England, the Emmanuel Schools Foundation, sponsored by Christian car dealer Sir Peter Vardy, has been criticised for featuring creationist theories in lessons in the three comprehensives it runs.

'Faith position'

Sir Peter has said the schools present both Darwin's evolutionary theory and creationism.

In 2003, he said: "One is a theory, the other is a faith position. It is up to the children."

In the United States, there have been court cases over what schools should teach.

Last month scientists there protested against a movement to teach intelligent design - the theory that life is so complex that it must be the work of a supernatural designer.

In December, a judge in Pennsylvania said it was unconstitutional to make teachers feature the concept of intelligent design in science lessons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4828238.stm

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

What gets me is the way that creationists seem to believe that if only they could prove that living creatures were 'designed' in some manner, then it would serve as point blank evidence of the god they so happen to believe in.

Wouldn't it be amusing if, somehow, it was determined beyond doubt that humans were intelligently designed...but by greys!

 

[Kathy_Pike]

Then my final subtle riposte would be to punch him in the gob!

God creates fist, God makes nose, God attaches fist to arm and finally God creates creationist to carry said nose around.



That sort of thing?

All part of God's vast eternal plan...

Sounds like something I did once. Someone at my church* became obsessed with the idea that everything was fated by God, and we had no control over what happened. I punched him, and then appologised, saying that I couldn't help it, my punch was fate, and I had no free will or control over it.

*I am a Christian, but I am also a molecular biologist who thinks that Intelligent design is the biggest pile of poo ever.

 

[rynner2]

Teach the origins of life based on evidence, scientists demand
By Steve Bird

Faith schools are being accused of failing to give children the facts about the theory of evolution

THE world’s leading scientists have joined together to call for “evidence-based” teaching of the origins of life in schools.

A statement signed by national science academies from 67 countries, including Britain, claims that children at some faith-based schools are not being taught evolution.

Some schools hold that evolution is merely a theory, while the Bible is the truth.

The statement, which was signed by the Royal Society,said: “We urge decision-makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and foster an understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet.

“Within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied or confused with theories not testable by science.”

It goes on to say that schools in some parts of the world teach children that the Earth is only 8,000 years old.

Creationism includes a belief that all forms of life have always existed in their present form, and that the world was formed in 4004BC, rather than 4,600 million years ago, as scientists believe.

The statement followed a long-running row over claims that some of Tony Blair’s flagship city academies teach creationism in science lessons.

It was claimed that schools in the North East backed by one academy sponsor, the Christian millionaire Sir Peter Vardy, were promoting creationism alongside evolutionary scientific theory. The King’s Academy in Middlesbrough, which Sir Peter sponsored, has denied teaching creationism.

In America, many Christians reject Darwinism as a theory and insist that the Bible is the true explanation of the origin of the planet and its species.

Academics are challenging one prominent theory being taught in a growing number of schools across American.

The theory, “intelligent design”, suggests that some species are too complex to have evolved through natural selection, as most scientists believe, and must therefore be the product of a “designer”, or God.

However, scientists claim that such teachings deny children the right to learn about the steps humans have made in explaining the existence of the world and human beings.

Martin Rees, the president of the Royal Society, said: “There is controversy in some parts of the world about the teaching of evolution to pupils, so this makes clear the views of the scientific community.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 07,00.html

I don't suppose that will affect the IDers and other religious types much, however...

 

[almond13]

“Within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied or confused with theories not testable by science.”

It goes on to say that schools in some parts of the world teach children that the Earth is only 8,000 years old.

Creationism includes a belief that all forms of life have always existed in their present form, and that the world was formed in 4004BC, rather than 4,600 million years ago, as scientists believe”.

Here we go again.

I for one have never met this fabled Christian who believes that the world was created in 4004BC. James Ussher (1581-1656), - This is propaganda devised by academic scientists to divert the debate from the real issues and in doing so keep themselves in a cushy job. The science of astronomy at the time was based on the Ptolemaic spheres - does anyone take this seriously any more?
Yes, to embrace creationism in its fullest sense means to state these things as fact, but the people who do are rarer than hen’s teeth – a small minority like flat earthers.
Does it never occur to anyone to enter a discussion about evolution from a scientific/logical point of view? (I mean the dictionary definition of scientific and not career/funding based)

What are these testable theories that are thrust at us but never clearly defined?
I think that they have to arise from the fossil record that even Darwin admitted was not evident. Years have passed since his time and the situation remains the same. The fossils lie in layers of strata and each layer is clearly defined by the particular fossils that it contains. (This is how they are dated) There are no intermediate or transition fossils. Evolutionists will disagree with this and point to, maybe a small bone in say the jaw and claim that it looks like that of a later fossil. This kind of reasoning is the basis for the whole discipline.

The next point I would make is about using examples like the Peppered Moth as proof of evolution. This is adaptation and not evolution; we all know that dogs have changed over the centuries by selective breading, but they have not changed species. They can all reproduce with each other and size is the only barrier. They are still dogs and if left to their own devices they would revert to the original wild state – whatever that was, because that is what their genetic makeup dictates; experiments with fruit flies have proven this. And if a group were cut-off from the rest of the dogs they would become as close to the former as their genetic info would allow.
Evolutionists say to this, ah, but with enough millions of years? And yet, when it comes to human evolution from apes in a few thousand years the opposite tack is taken; it’s mathematically possible.

I could go on, but this is the reason that the so-called “creationists” are able to carry out such a successful campaign – because there are so many holes and dubious claims in the theory that is claimed as fact. This is the reason that rather than argue their case the evolutionists have resorted to name calling and bullying.

The final point is about those that accept evolution as fact purely because it’s a welcome alternative to God. To these I have to say that you are making evolution into a religion and this is totally unscientific/illogical.

 

[TJ_Honeysuckle]

Yawn.

Just how Fortean is this topic, anyway?

 

[rynner2]

Here we go again.

I for one have never met this fabled Christian who believes that the world was created in 4004BC.

No 'fabled Christian' was mentioned in the article I quoted, but real Christians in America were.

There, some schools have been trying to teach 'creationism', in some guise or other, for many years, and there have sometimes been fierce legal battles about it.

More recently some schools in this country have been venturing down the same road.

For more information on all this, see

- er -

the previous parts of this thread! 8)

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Yawn.

Just how Fortean is this topic, anyway?

Very. Boundaries of Scientific hubris and all that...

 

[rynner2]

Yawn.

Just how Fortean is this topic, anyway?

Very. Boundaries of Scientific hubris and all that...

...or, boundaries of religious belief systems!

 

[wembley8]

[I for one have never met this fabled Christian who believes that the world was created in 4004BC. James Ussher (1581-1656), - This is propaganda devised by academic scientists to divert the debate from the real issues and in doing so keep themselves in a cushy job. .

Would that it were so...

If you got to
http://www.icr.org/
you can meet lots of them, thepage on their tenets includes -

"All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false. All things which now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. ...The Biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and fall of man, the curse on the creation and its subjection to the bondage of decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the days of Noah, "

The bible is "free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological. "

So there! It may be incredible to you that anyone can believe this, but they really do.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Would that it were so...

If you got to
http://www.icr.org/
you can meet lots of them, thepage on their tenets includes -

...

So there! It may be incredible to you that anyone can believe this, but they really do.

And these Creationists are most definitely not backing the the argument for the literal truth of the Bible on scientific, or even spiritual grounds.

The reasons are primarily politico-religious.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2818

Welcome to
The Institute For Creation Research
We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4,5.

By standing by the absolute, literal truth of the (King James Version) Bible, they have a powerful tool in the Rightwing Christian Fundamentalism's fight against, not just Evolutionary, but Scientific Humanism. However, in order to succeed, certain compromises have to be made, with logic, reason and scientific method.

Such a position must be heavy on rhetoric (of the Holy roller, door to door Bible Saleman variety) and low on scientific rigour.

The KJv Bible, is, after all a collection of oral folk tales, myths and legends, from all over the Mediterranean basin, as well as songs, poems, prophecies, wonder tales of the prophets, politico-religious propaganda, laws, religious observances, eyewitness and FoaF accounts, pseudo historical information and epistolary letters, created over at least 1500 years, carefully collated and censored, mainly in the 3rd, or 4th centuries AD. (by a committee of clerics) and then re written out of several sources in the Seventeenth century, by a committee of experts, writers and poets, which may even have included the playwright, Ben Jonson, at the behest of King James I (VI of Scotland), desperate to prove both his Protestant credentials and his right to reign by Divine Right.

The KJv is beautifully poetic and resonant, but hardly accurate, or precise, by modern standards. So, it's worth considering, why are Creationists and their fellow travellers, the ID proponents, so desperate to maintain a Seventeenth century World view?

 

[Mister_Awesome]

“Within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied or confused with theories not testable by science.”

It goes on to say that schools in some parts of the world teach children that the Earth is only 8,000 years old.

Creationism includes a belief that all forms of life have always existed in their present form, and that the world was formed in 4004BC, rather than 4,600 million years ago, as scientists believe”.

Here we go again.

I for one have never met this fabled Christian who believes that the world was created in 4004BC. James Ussher (1581-1656), - This is propaganda devised by academic scientists to divert the debate from the real issues and in doing so keep themselves in a cushy job. The science of astronomy at the time was based on the Ptolemaic spheres - does anyone take this seriously any more?
Yes, to embrace creationism in its fullest sense means to state these things as fact, but the people who do are rarer than hen’s teeth – a small minority like flat earthers.
Does it never occur to anyone to enter a discussion about evolution from a scientific/logical point of view? (I mean the dictionary definition of scientific and not career/funding based)

What are these testable theories that are thrust at us but never clearly defined?
I think that they have to arise from the fossil record that even Darwin admitted was not evident. Years have passed since his time and the situation remains the same. The fossils lie in layers of strata and each layer is clearly defined by the particular fossils that it contains. (This is how they are dated) There are no intermediate or transition fossils. Evolutionists will disagree with this and point to, maybe a small bone in say the jaw and claim that it looks like that of a later fossil. This kind of reasoning is the basis for the whole discipline.

The next point I would make is about using examples like the Peppered Moth as proof of evolution. This is adaptation and not evolution; we all know that dogs have changed over the centuries by selective breading, but they have not changed species. They can all reproduce with each other and size is the only barrier. They are still dogs and if left to their own devices they would revert to the original wild state – whatever that was, because that is what their genetic makeup dictates; experiments with fruit flies have proven this. And if a group were cut-off from the rest of the dogs they would become as close to the former as their genetic info would allow.
Evolutionists say to this, ah, but with enough millions of years? And yet, when it comes to human evolution from apes in a few thousand years the opposite tack is taken; it’s mathematically possible.

I could go on, but this is the reason that the so-called “creationists” are able to carry out such a successful campaign – because there are so many holes and dubious claims in the theory that is claimed as fact. This is the reason that rather than argue their case the evolutionists have resorted to name calling and bullying.

The final point is about those that accept evolution as fact purely because it’s a welcome alternative to God. To these I have to say that you are making evolution into a religion and this is totally unscientific/illogical.

I've met plenty of 'young Earth believers' in my time, but I'm not concerned about them. It's easy enough to dismiss them as nutters. I'd rather dedicate my time to educating rational people.

Adaption /is/ evolution.

And transitional forms are an archaic concept. All life forms are transitional forms, though some never are able to adapt enough to evolve significantly, and die out. Likewise, I believe it is postulated that man didn't evolve from apes, but rather that they share a common anscestor.

I hear the same arguements for Creationism (along with mantras such as 'Evolution is full of holes'), but they don't hold water. Yet, they are repeated so often that they are believed to be true by many. But at the same time, the other side doesn't present its case in a way that is easy to understand. (It's usually more like, 'That's stupid! Shut up!' )

For example, dogs are a terrible example, because they were artificially induced to evolve. Moreover they haven't been allowed to evolve further since they were molded in their current version. And on top of that, look at how dramatically a life form can be changed in almost no time at all.

Also remember that the fossil record is the tiniest peek into what sorts of animals lived during any particular time. Fossils are very rare and it's rediculous to assume we have anything close to the full picture from the scant remains we've found. In a few we can observe a natural progression, like coelurosaurs. And moreover, each new discovery and surprise tends to fill a hole we didn't understand rather than create a gap in evolution.

It's really not as dramatic as everyone makes it out to be. In fact, it's very simple. Moths and bacteria and cockroaches /are/ evolving right before our eyes. But you can't expect them to become something completely different within our lifetimes. They've had the same basic forms for a long time, and their adaptions only require subtle changes.
I think it starts out as 'I don't get it,' which leads to groping for a solution, which leads to falling into Creationist propoganda.

Anyways, I could have probably said it more elegantly, but there it is.

Edit: broke up text.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Anyways, I could have probably said it more elegantly, but there it is.

If you break up the text more, it makes it easier to read on the screen.

Otherwise, highly readable.

I liked the bit about 'adaptation' and 'evolution' being more, or less the same thing, there being no need for clearly defined intermediate stages (transitional forms) during the process of speciation and especially the bit about selective breeding being a form of accelerated adaptation/evolution.

A lot of the Creationist/ID argument against Evolution rests on vagiaries in the interpretation and misapplication of language. Whereas, the Evolutionist argument against Creationism/ID rests on a body of tested and verifiable science, where only the interpretation of what the results mean is sometimes in dispute and as you say, sometimes not enough care is taken in communicating what it all actually means, to others (mostly non-scientists).

Creationism/ID, as with the case of the fossil record, regularily rejects, or misinterprets the results, beyond what is actually shown by the science.

 

[Mister_Awesome]

I find it's easy to define evolution, but difficult to argue in its favor, at least for me. There's just so much! The National Geographic had a terrific article called 'Was Darwin Wrong?' that shoud be very widely read. I also watched the episode of Cosmos dedicated to the subject, which makes it so simple and easy to understand that it's no wonder I was shocked the first time I met someone who didn't believe in evolution.

 

[almond13]

I find it's easy to define evolution, but difficult to argue in its favor, at least for me. There's just so much! The National Geographic had a terrific article called 'Was Darwin Wrong?' that shoud be very widely read. I also watched the episode of Cosmos dedicated to the subject, which makes it so simple and easy to understand that it's no wonder I was shocked the first time I met someone who didn't believe in evolution.

There are two types of people who want to learn more about the, for and against, of evolution, those that have swallowed the scientific party line and those that question all things in a fair and logical way.
The first type are not going to change their minds and would rather burn at the stake than do any thinking of their own. They have chosen to let science do their thinking for them.

Evolution is rammed down our throats from the cradle to the grave and is one of the mainstays of science. If it should fall, then science will probably spontaneously combust and so there is a monumental effort to keep it going. You will see statements like “evolution is fact (tautology)” and it’s this kind of thing that makes me suspicious. If a scientist is challenged by anomalous facts he tends to fudge and not give a direct answer or accuse the questioner of being a creationist. Any counter arguments are debunked or subjected to blinding with science.

The popular TV programs tend towards the simplistic and do not mention the problems – which are manifold. In a recent one – the name escapes me – they show the evolution of man from what can only be described as Bigfoot. The actual part where he moves from this “beast” to Cro-Magnon (a modern man like us) is not explained. When I asked the enlightened how this could happen in such a short time when millions of years are usually required I was told that it is mathematically possible. (Fudge, blinding with science)

Evolutionist point to animals that adapt to their environment as examples and like a recent poster on this group, will tell you that evolution is going on all around you. The most recent publicised example of this is the Peppered Moth that is said to have darkened due to industrial pollution. If this were true (and I have other info about this) the light moths would be open to more predation than the dark ones and tend to die out. If the problem is worldwide the light ones will disappear. What we have in actual fact is more dark moths in polluted areas and if the pollution ends the moths will return to normal. This is not evolution it is adaptation by default.

Evolution cannot stand without macroevolution (a change of species) and there is no way to prove that this has ever happened, except to say that “It must have” and this is not scientific it’s faith.

The core of the theory is the fossil record and this does NOT show evolution in action; it shows abrupt changes from one type of life to another (with no clues between) after catastrophic events. There are no testable experiments that can be shown to prove the theory or we would have them in our faces.