Topic: Why is it..... (Read 3859 times)

rareairpug · « **on:** October 31, 2006, 12:24:51 AM »

.....that evolutionists can't stand any alternative being taught in schools?

See this link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061030/ap_on_re_us/ohio_evolution

Seriously, I've always wondered about this. I believe that God created the world, I am sure of it, but I don't have a problem with evolution being taught in a school alongside with creationism. Actually, I would prefer it. The reason is, I would want the kids to be able to think critically for themselves. If my belief is correct, then a kid who can use basic reason and logic should come to that belief on their own anyways. Do evolutionists not believe this? Is there a reason that they don't want other theories taught? I can't help but see this attempt as a form of brainwashing....

Cogito · « **Reply #1 on:** October 31, 2006, 01:44:32 AM »

Quote from: rareairpug

I don't have a problem with evolution being taught in a school alongside with creationism.

I know basically what the theory of evolution says about natural selection, genetic drift, nonrandom mating, the flow and mutation of genes within gene pools, morphological differences, phyletic gradualism, punctuated equilibrium, etc., etc. -- but what does the theory of creationism say? I mean of course, beyond the naked assertion that evolution is an entirely mistaken theory?

Cannot the entire 'theory' of creationism be summed up by the phrase "goddidit"? Or is there some speculation out there about how a speculated god actually went about a speculated manufacturing process? Is there some guess, perhaps, about some magical incantation or other that the god may have uttered when it poofed the universe into existence?

Should we teach all creation stories are just the Abrahamic?

Cogito · « **Reply #2 on:** October 31, 2006, 01:45:51 AM »

Quote from: rareairpug

I don't have a problem with evolution being taught in a school alongside with creationism.

I know basically what the theory of evolution says about natural selection, genetic drift, nonrandom mating, the flow and mutation of genes within gene pools, morphological differences, phyletic gradualism, punctuated equilibrium, yada yada yada -- but what does the theory of creationism say? I mean of course, beyond the naked assertion that evolution is an entirely mistaken theory?

I've seriously wondered about this: What specifically is there to teach about a theory of creationism?

Cannot the entire 'theory' of creationism be summed up by the phrase "goddidit"? Or is there some speculation out there about how a speculated god actually went about a speculated manufacturing process? Is there some guess, perhaps, about some magical incantation or other that the god may have uttered when it poofed the universe into existence?

Should we teach all creation stories are just the Abrahamic?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #3 on:** October 31, 2006, 08:32:43 AM »

"Cannot the entire 'theory' of creationism be summed up by the phrase "goddidit"?"

Only if one wanted to be narrowmindedly simplistic. But if the shoe goes on the other foot, the entire 'theory' of evolution can be summed up by the phrase "naturedidit."

I could give you dozens of specific examples from nature in no time flat that you could not explain via specific evolutionary mechanisms . Your answer to those examples would be that I'm unreasonable to request or expect to be able to explain them. However, since evolutionary theory feigns as a scientific theory, mere explanation isn't enough- some sort of empirical demonstration ought to follow. Such a demonstration will be impossible, impractical, [insert excuse here], and thus we'd see you content yourself with merely being satisfied that somehow, some time in the distant past, the miniscule mechanisms we observe today managed to do that.

It has been said in response to this that 'naturedidit' at least has going for it that its worked- but that is not actually the case in evolutionary biology.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #4 on:** October 31, 2006, 08:53:08 AM »

"Should we teach all creation stories are just the Abrahamic?"

Well gee, I dunno. Don't the Abrahamic 'creation stories' undergird the belief system of half the world's population, and certainly the populations of Western Civ? Good grief. I remember in my high school science class I learned about ancient discredited theories. I can recall in particular various Greek views of the world. Why these? Why not the abandoned theories from China? OMG, what were they thinking?!?!?!?

Well, sane people recognize that there are some very concrete reasons, in western civ at least, to point to theories directly within the historical development of.... western civ. Its not brain surgery. Do you really deny that the Abrahamic creation story is not foundational in western civ?

In my high school class, I not only learned how the Greeks were wrong on certain things, but we actually performed experiments. I can think of no better learning tool than to take "creationism" and discredit it with a direct experiment right in the classroom! And conversely, of course, perform experiments which corroborate evolution right in the classroom.

But one last thing. I accepted your premise that there were such a multitude of different creation stories to show how ridiculous it is on its face. There are a number of reasons for why you'd select the Abrahamic ones, many of them similar to why you would choose failures in Greek history and not, say, China's. But it is not true in fact that there are so many various creation stories that to open the door is to be unable to stem the tide.

This point is better made by reference to flood stories rather than creation stories, because if we were to be fair (I intend to, I'm not asking or expecting you to be), we'd recognize that the main distinction of 'Abrahamic' 'creationism' is that there was a global deluge. Thus, 'creationism' is just one very big application of 'catastrophism,' actually. And it so happens that there are striking similarities in the stories of many, if not most, geographically distinct populations in regards to there being a global deluge. In fact, there is nearly uniform agreement that there was a global deluge and that only a few were spared. Polynesians, Amazon indians, Jews... all have that in common.

This may mean nothing to you, but you will recall that you conceded that we derive some of our assumptions about the patterns of nature from past human experience. These stories are testimony of some such human experience, and can't be dismissed out of hand.

Incidentally, it has always struck me as odd that humans have measured their history almost always from about 10,000 years ago, but if evolution is correct, than homo sapiens have been around since at least 100,000 years ago (that was the last number I heard- given the tremendous certainty that scientific conclusions now come to us, I expect that number has probably been revised), co-existing at least with one other homo race during that time, and perhaps others. Yet there are no 'evolution' myths. There are only myths speaking of a finite beginning in the recent past and myths of a deluge. No 'we came from the monkey's myths.' Odd, I think.

Cogito · « **Reply #5 on:** October 31, 2006, 09:03:06 AM »

We're not discussing the theory of evolution and its alleged shortcomings, remember? We're talking now about the 'theory of creationism' and how it should be taught alongside the theory of evolution in biology classes.

My question is: What exactly is there to teach about the theory of creationism?

Go ahead. Give me a sample lecture, teacher.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #6 on:** October 31, 2006, 09:32:56 AM »

"We're not discussing the theory of evolution and its alleged shortcomings, remember? We're talking now about the 'theory of creationism' and how it should be taught alongside the theory of evolution in biology classes."

Look, Cop, I know you are aware of Kuhn's paradigm arguments. In science, it has never been enough to merely be right in saying something is wrong. Scientists have been so filled with their own ... ok, I'll leave my perspective out... anyway, they had to have their noses rubbed in something else- presumably something right- before they abandoned their previous POV. Theoretically, Evolutionary theory replaced other theories because the evidence warranted it. This is reason enough to present "creationism" in the science class room, so that students understand what it replaced, and why- and ideally with their own hands on experiments to prove the point.

However, rare's post illustrates the very curious fact that in this case, many scientists and most secular humanistic educators don't want to provide the details of what was supplanted by evolutionary theory. Rather than setting up the best argument (that people found compelling for thousands of years) for the supplanted theory and knocking it down, its not allowed to be talked about at all. Except in comparative religion class, of course.

"Go ahead. Give me a sample lecture, teacher."

lol yea I don't think so.

Cogito · « **Reply #7 on:** October 31, 2006, 05:43:42 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

This is reason enough to present "creationism" in the science class room.

So, again, for the third time now, what specifically would be presented in the classroom as 'the theory of creationism'? Neither you nor rare seem to have the foggiest idea about what this might be. Nor does any other creationist.

And for good reason.

It's because there is no 'theory' of creationism to teach. Creationism is absolutist dogma; it explains nothing. The 'theory of creationism' is no more than a religious, not a scientific, critique of evolution.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #8 on:** October 31, 2006, 08:18:38 PM »

"So, again, for the third time now, what specifically would be presented in the classroom as 'the theory of creationism'?"

This is nothing more than a distraction. Rare's question is what are you afraid of? If the theory is without content, its going to be real easy for the science teacher to knock down, right? Whassamatta,

?

Let's deal with one issue at a time.

Neither you nor rare seem to have the foggiest idea about what this might be. Nor does any other creationist."

lol. Someone needs to slap a cape on your back. Presumption Man rides again! You're just ignorant, and it shows.

"It's because there is no 'theory' of creationism to teach. Creationism is absolutist dogma; it explains nothing. The 'theory of creationism' is no more than a religious, not a scientific, critique of evolution."

Who cares? Let's say for the sake of argument I accept this ignorant drivel and concede your point. If this is in fact the case, it will be extremely easy to knock down, won't it? The ironic thing is that you have just labeled 'Creationism' an absolutist dogma, but let me submit that the truly absolutist dogma is the one that doesn't even let other possible explanations a place on the table.

Perhaps the secret concern here, the real truth behind all of the atheistic and evolutionary scientist's objections, is that they know that unless evolutionary theory is the only one at the table, its not going to be accepted by the populace. And I don't mean to say by that that you think evolution will lose out on the evidence- I think its your view that people are idiots and morons and stupid fools who are too guillible to think for themselves.

That's what I think.

rareairpug · « **Reply #9 on:** October 31, 2006, 08:42:54 PM »

Quote

The 'theory of creationism' is no more than a religious, not a scientific, critique of evolution.

Are you implying that God's existence is beyond scientific inquiry?

Cogito · « **Reply #10 on:** October 31, 2006, 09:37:41 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

If the theory is without content. . .

What 'theory'? Again, for the fourth time, what precisely is your 'theory' of creationism besides 'sntjohnny'sgoddidit'?

Cat got your tongue?

God got your tongue?

Same question to you, rare. (And, BTW, I hope you eventually find time to respond to my point in the "My Faith In Science. . . " thread that says: Since testimony relies solely on experience to justify its use as evidence, testimony about miracuolous events undermines the very thing (experience) that gives testimony credence to begin with.)

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #11 on:** October 31, 2006, 10:21:45 PM »

Wow. We really have a man here who refuses to speak to the point of the thread. Your implied challenge has already been answered: if the theory is so vacuous, it will be easy enough to shoot down, won't it?

This is where you explain why you would object to having such a flimsy 'theory' presented in a science classroom. Seems to me that it would be the easiest, most straight-forward way to stomp out all this creationism business. You should be welcoming the opportunity to introduce the rubbish into the science classroom, for its obvious that in a generation everyone would see how obviously its rubbish!

Sure, you'll have to put up with the indignity of it all- allowing rubbish into the science classroom even though being as smart as ya'll are you know already its rubbish and wish everyone else did too- but after a generation the facts would win out... but no...

Answer the point of this thread and I may, just may, be tempted to answer your insinuations. Which is really generous of me, since I already pointed out that 'creationism' really boils down on an empirical level to 'catastrophism.' Surely you don't think that THAT is an empty term.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #12 on:** November 01, 2006, 12:04:12 AM »

Cog.. the simple answer is that it is a theory... the same as YOUR theory.
:)

But that is something you cannot accept, apparently.

Cogito · « **Reply #13 on:** November 01, 2006, 01:10:42 AM »

I disagree, ZZ. Creationism is not a theory "the same as" the theory of evolution. Creationism is a 'theory,' and a poor one, in the layman's sense of 'theory'; that is, it's "an assumption based on limited information."

The theory of evolution OTOH is a theory in the scientific sense of 'theory'; that is, it's "a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

Now, one may not agree with the set of statements that make up the theory of evolution (even though science agrees with them) but no one seriously denies that the theory of evolution comprises that set of statements.

That's why I am asking the question, What are the similar set of statements or principles that 'creationism' comprises?

What is unfair about that question? Rareairpug mused aloud that creationism ought to be taught alongside the theory of evolution in school (that is, in science classrooms, I assume).

My question was and still is, What specifically would be taught as "Creationism"? There are creationist sites all over the web that stumble with the answer to that question. I'm surprised that no one yet has mimicked their answers (although I suspect that's coming just any minute now).

SML · « **Reply #14 on:** November 01, 2006, 11:06:59 AM »

from gg to zz... this is very off-topic, but why the change?

SML · « **Reply #15 on:** November 01, 2006, 11:31:13 AM »

"What are the similar set of statements or principles that 'creationism' comprises? "

SJ already answered this, at least in part... catastrophism... it is a much better fit for the world that we observe, historically speaking, than uniformitarianism.

Abrupt appearance and stasis, with gradual extinction. This also fits the creation model better than the evolution model and is observed historically in nature (the gradual extinction part is observed directly...).

Abiogenesis... is this something that can be observed, or is it something we have to assume as a starting point to a naturalistic view of evolution? Or... was it proved false long, long ago already?

I have no fear of having evolution taught alongside creation. If evolution is so true... the question remains... why do evolutionists fear this?

Cogito · « **Reply #16 on:** November 01, 2006, 03:54:45 PM »

So IYO, Maj, more or less, does 'creationism' = 'the theory of catastrophism'?

Quote from: Maj73

Abrupt appearance and stasis, with gradual extinction. This also fits the creation model better than the evolution model and is observed historically in nature (the gradual extinction part is observed directly...).

Unless you are equating creationism with the theory of catastrophism, how so?

Quote

Abiogenesis... is this something that can be observed, or is it something we have to assume as a starting point to a naturalistic view of evolution? Or... was it proved false long, long ago already?

The theory of evolution does not assume abiogenesis as its starting point and in no way is contingent upon that theory.

In answer to the first part of your question, of course abiogenesis is something that can be observed.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #17 on:** November 01, 2006, 05:03:40 PM »

"Unless you are equating creationism with the theory of catastrophism, how so?"

As I said, from an actual empirical POV, the parts of 'creationism' that are relevant are primarily, but certainly not exlusively, the 'catastrophic' points. The question simply is whether or not the data- fossils, the geologic column, 'creation myths,' is better explained via uniformitarianism and gradualistic mechanisms or catastrophic ones.

"The theory of evolution does not assume abiogenesis as its starting point and in no way is contingent upon that theory."

Well, this is the standard line this century. Evolutionists had to adopt it after highly respected Christian scientist Pasteur beat the tar out of notions of spontaneous generation. There was a time when the division was not made. Make no mistake, if evolutionists could find a way to bundle them up again, they would.

At anyrate, making this division would presumably make atheists at least open to the prospect that abiogenesis may be best explained by the intervention of an intelligent agent, since after all they currently have no explanations of their own except for 'naturedidit.' Funny, though. I have yet to meet an atheist willing to be open-minded enough to embrace the obvious ramification of making this division.

That said, I bring this all up to really point out that if HOW things got started in the first place is allowed to be set aside as irrelevant to what happened after it got started in regards to evolution and abiogenesis, then in fair play, I should be able to make a distinction between the actual mechanisms of HOW God is alleged to have created [ie, Gen 1-2] and what happened afterwards [Gen 4-11].

Thus, in the science classroom, both sides could lay out the presuppositions underneath each position about the mystery of HOW it initially came into form, and then evaluate whether the data is more consistent with uniformitism or catastrophism, ie, the mechanisms by which things changed afterwards.

Again, its really not brain surgery.

Cogito · « **Reply #18 on:** November 01, 2006, 06:34:27 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

As I said, from an actual empirical POV, the parts of 'creationism' that are relevant are primarily, but certainly not exlusively, the 'catastrophic' points.

Let's explore that for just a second.

What then are the 'non-catastrophic theory' empirical parts of creationism?

Quote

Well, this is the standard line this century. Evolutionists had to adopt it after highly respected Christian scientist Pasteur beat the tar out of notions of spontaneous generation.

'Spontaneous generation' is not what is meant by 'abiogenesis' in science. You do know that, correct?

Quote

There was a time when the division [between 'the theory of evolution' and 'theories of how life originated'] was not made.

You are simply mistaken. Darwin titled his book "On The Origin of Species" and not the "On The Origin of Life" for a reason. Darwin, the father of evolution, never intended evolution to explain how life on this planet first arose. Obviously (at least it should be obvious to all who know anything about the theory) the theory of evolution takes life, however life on earth arose, as its starting point.

Christians, in their pathetic attempt to discredit the theory, have desperately and disingenuously tried to link it to abiogenesis from the very beginning.

Quote

At anyrate, making this division would presumably make atheists at least open to the prospect that abiogenesis may be best explained by the intervention of an intelligent agent, since after all they currently have no explanations of their own except for 'naturedidit.' Funny, though. I have yet to meet an atheist willing to be open-minded enough to embrace the obvious ramification of making this division.

Perhaps you haven't met one because the division you describe does not have the ramification, obvious or otherwise, that you attribute to it.

Your ramification is as silly as the ramification that says, since we have no natural explanation for the sun's traversing our sky each day, a god must be pulling it across behind his chariot. Yeah, that's the ticket! If we are ignorant about the cause of some natural phenomenon or other let's just substitute the word 'god' for the phrase 'we don't know' and then, magically, the phenomenon becomes explained. . . just don't ask me any questions about the details of that explanation, OK?

Quote

then in fair play, I should be able to make a distinction between the actual mechanisms of HOW God is alleged to have created [ie, Gen 1-2] and what happened afterwards [Gen 4-11].

Sure, why not? So does this mean that you want Genesis 4-11 taught in classrooms as the theory of creationism alongside the theory of evolution?

Quote

Thus, in the science classroom, both sides could lay out the presuppositions underneath each position about the mystery of HOW it initially came into form

But why when, as you just more or less acknowledged, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with any theory of abiogenesis? Why do you insist upon the coupling of evolution and abiogenesis when they are two totally distinct scientific questions? Should we also throw the Big Bang into the mix? Given your reasoning here, why not?

Quote

and then evaluate whether the data is more consistent with uniformitism or catastrophism, ie, the mechanisms by which things changed afterwards.

But 'catastrophism' is currently taught in classrooms! It is a staple of geologic theory. Gradual change punctuated by the occasional catastrophic occurrence is the scientific theory that best explains how the earth came to be in its present condition.

Punctuated equilibrium is the evolutionary counterpart to geologic catastrophism, in some respects, and it, too, is already taught in classrooms.

It is Genesis that is not taught in science classrooms, nor should it be, and if you were more honest you would admit that it is Genesis that you want taught in science classrooms. It's the 'goddidit' part of the so-called 'theory of creationism' that you want taught and, sorry, but that ain't gonna happen.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #19 on:** November 01, 2006, 07:04:47 PM »

"Let's explore that for just a second."

Why? Despite your flagrant attempts to leave Rare's actual question unaddressed, both Maj and I have given you a few posts entertaining those diversions. If you're going to pester us about our refusal to answer a question "four times" that isn't even the subject of the thread, don't you think its high time that you answer our question- WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD?

Its just a thought.

"You are simply mistaken. Darwin titled his book "On The Origin of Species" and not the "On The Origin of Life" for a reason."

Perhaps you do not know what the word 'origin' means.

I didn't realize that there was a hard distinction between 'life' and 'species.'

Man, you're really scraping. That said, certainly that one book didn't deal so much with the ruddy beginning of things, but that doesn't mean that he never spoke about it or that other biologists weren't talking about it in connection to their theory. There is a reason why Pasteur performed his experiments- and it wasn't because early evolutionary biologists weren't talking about it.

Also, for point of reference, the full title of his book in the first edition was:

On The Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection, or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

So yea, this particular book on evolution didn't focus on abiogenesis, but nor can it be said that there was a clear cut line between 'life' and 'species' lol.

But you're just trying to distract from the question in front of you, aren't you?

"Perhaps you haven't met one because the division you describe does not have the ramification, obvious or otherwise, that you attribute to it."

That is one possibility. Alas, that is not the case, is it? Obviously, even if we apply the 'naturalism of the gaps' methodology that you wish to employ in regards to abiogenesis, it remains that as yet there isn't any real headway made on this point, and probably won't be for thousands of years. Reasonable people would see that this ought to give even the evolutionary atheists a little room to entertain that here at the bloody bottom of things may in fact be something that can only be explained via intelligent agency. You can't exclude it, can you? Do you? If so, on what grounds?

Ah well. Silly me. I'm letting you divert the discussion. No more. Please address the question put to you now. Like four times.

But a quick clarification....

"But why when, as you just more or less acknowledged, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with any theory of abiogenesis? Why do you insist upon the coupling of evolution and abiogenesis when they are two totally distinct scientific questions? Should we also throw the Big Bang into the mix? Given your reasoning here, why not?"

Your ability to miss the point is unparalleled. It was not my point at all to couple them. The point was that if evolutionary theory was allowed to just insulate itself from the problem of abiogenesis and merely take it as a presupposition, then there is no shame in a Christian asking to make a distinction between however God created things in Gen 1-2, take them as presupposed (like evolutionists presuppose life), and focus on catastrophism. So, yes- this would mainly be Gen 4-10/11, but if you really had ever took the time to invesigate what creationists think, you'd already know this.

"But 'catastrophism' is currently taught in classrooms!"

Then you should have no objection to Christians proposing that a single, massive catastrophic event occurred at one time, which would explain in a different way data that is currently explained as having come about gradually. And then you could knock this down with experimentation. Right?

Here we are again back to the question to you. Please answer it.

Author Topic: Why is it..... (Read 3859 times)