why we fight creationists

[brightmoon]

http://www.texscience.org/reviews/biology-professor-letter.htm

More than one hundred biology faculty members from universities across Texas signed a letter sent Monday, December 10, 2007, to Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott saying Texas Education Agency employees should not have to remain neutral on evolution.

The letter is in response to the departure of former science curriculum director Christine Comer, who says she was forced to resign days after forwarding an email message her superiors said made the agency appear biased against alternatives to evolution. The agency said it must "remain neutral" on the subject of evolution vs. Creationism and used this as the primary justification for asking Ms. Comer to resign.


my 2 cents ..separate creation is a failed, incoherent and speculative explanation and evolution/common descent is neither controversial nor are there other scientifically valid alternative theories

[brightmoon]

David Hillis, a UT professor of integrative biology who also signed the letter, said, “I think it is a clear sign of how far we have slipped into scientific illiteracy in this country when a science director at the Texas Education Agency is fired for merely forwarding an e-mail about a talk related to science education. It is extraordinarily unfortunate and inappropriate that religious views are dictating hiring and firing decisions at the Texas Education Agency.”

[Blü]

.
brightmoon

I agree.

Creationism is merely magic. It has no power to explain, predict or integrate with science generally.

It does have one thing in common with science though - it can be falsified. And that's already been done on this board time after time - including, of course, this (http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=821&discussionID=458136).

[MMarcoe]

One of the key passages in the letter is this:

"Principles of evolution are at the basis of human genomics and personalized medicine and are applied daily by people working in medicine, agriculture, engineering, and pharmaceuticals."

If we let creationism in, progress in medicine and related fields will decline. Period. The underpinnings of evolutionary science are a big part of why biology has advanced so far since Darwin.

[ozero]

In case people did not understand the significance of this, I would like to point out that the Texas standards applied to textbooks usually have an impact on all the textbooks published in the US. The market in Texas is one that few textbook publishers can ignore and the only market of its size where such topics are discussed. It will take the combined efforts of the larger, civilized states such as New York and California to counteract the effects Texas has on textbooks.

[lucaspa]

http://www.texscience.org/reviews/biology-professor-letter.htm

I'm going to disagree with part of the letter, but not for the reasons you might think:

"It is inappropriate to expect the TEA’s director of science curriculum to “remain neutral” on this subject, any more than astronomy teachers should “remain neutral” about whether the Earth goes around the sun. In the world of science, evolution is equally well-supported and accepted as heliocentrism. Far from remaining neutral, it is the clear duty of the science staff at TEA and all other Texas educators to speak out unequivocally: evolution is a central pillar in any modern science education, while “intelligent design” is a religious idea that deserves no place in the science classroom at all."

ID does have a potential place in a science classroom: as an example of a falsified theory. Just like we can legitimately use the data on the position of planets and show that geocentrism is falsified by them while heliocentrism is supported, we can also use data on the evolution of the blood clotting system to show how ID is a falsified theory while evolution is a supported one.

Of course, the supporters of ID don't want ID taught as what it is: a falsified theory. :)

DarkSlateBlue "my 2 cents ..separate creation is a failed, incoherent and speculative explanation and evolution/common descent is neither controversial nor are there other scientifically valid alternative theories"

Special creation -- YEC, OEC, ID -- is a falsified scientific theory. Not only is that correct, but that way you avoid all the dead ends about what is and what is not science and any comment on the validity of theism in general. You are confining your discussion to science.

And Ozero, you are dead on in pointing out the significance of the Texas policy. Because Texas is such a large market, textbook publishers tailor their textbooks to get accepted in Texas.

Blu "Creationism is merely magic. It has no power to explain, predict or integrate with science generally."

That is the definition of a falsified theory. All falsified theories -- such as geocentrism, Steady State, or phlogiston -- fit your criteria of "magic". Yet ALL of them are still part of science. A theory does not drop out of science simply because it is falsified. It simply moves from the very short list of currently valid theories to the very long list of falsified theories. After all, if scientific theories are falsifiABLE, it follows that they could be false. And being false can't affect their scientific status.

[MMarcoe]

I suppose that if it's okay to put various discarded ideas into a science class as evidence of falsifiability, or as good examples of non-scientific explanations, I support discussion of creationism and ID in public schools ... but ONLY if it's in the service of putting them into proper scientific context.

Maybe outright exclusion of creationism and ID from science classes is the wrong way to go if we want to cut down the percentage of Americans who believe in them. Maybe students need to know from a scientific perspective precisely why these two notions are so unacceptable to the scientifically literate. Maybe they suspect that the science community is hiding something by leaving them out of the classroom.

This is not to say that they should be presented as viable scientific explanations; only that they should be presented as nonviable explanations.

[bluehorserunning]

lucaspa, you grant ID a status that it does not deserve: that of 'theory.' Given that it starts out with a statement rather than a question, it is debatable that it even deserves the title of 'hypothesis.'

[Blü]

.
lucaspa

That is the definition of a falsified theory. All falsified theories -- such as geocentrism, Steady State, or phlogiston -- fit your criteria of "magic".

No, none of them fits my criteria for magic.

The thing that distinguishes science from magic is that science is done - whether to a correct or an incorrect result - from observation. Each of geocentrism, steady state and phlogiston was argued from observation.

Magic is done by wishing, by imagining. The rest are only aids to imagining, such as Yahweh’s magic words, or Harry Potter’s magic words, wands, magic objects and tokens of things the subject of magic (such as Goyle’s hair).


A theory does not drop out of science simply because it is falsified.

There’s no theory of magic to falsify. I’ve asked eg iama, Cephas, geologist and Mario the techniques they say Yahweh used eg to magic the universe into existence or to do ID tweaking. No reply. Similarly, Hogwarts teaches how to magic, never why it works (except that you need the right genes).

[brightmoon]

I'm going to disagree with part of the letter, but not for the reasons you might think:
(edited)

Of course, the supporters of ID don't want ID taught as what it is: a falsified theory. :)



Special creation -- YEC, OEC, ID -- is a falsified scientific theory. Not only is that correct, but that way you avoid all the dead ends about what is and what is not science and any comment on the validity of theism in general. You are confining your discussion to science..

Blu "Creationism is merely magic. It has no power to explain, predict or integrate with science generally."

That is the definition of a falsified theory. All falsified theories -- such as geocentrism, Steady State, or phlogiston -- fit your criteria of "magic". Yet ALL of them are still part of science. A theory does not drop out of science simply because it is falsified. It simply moves from the very short list of currently valid theories to the very long list of falsified theories. After all, if scientific theories are falsifiABLE, it follows that they could be false. And being false can't affect their scientific status.

geocentricism, steady state, are falsified theories , separate creation isnt ..........there was never any supporting evidence for it ,

[KWinters]

Blu "Creationism is merely magic. It has no power to explain, predict or integrate with science generally."

That is the definition of a falsified theory.

But one doesn't falsify THEORIES. We falsify hypothesis - the testable statements derived from the theories.


All falsified theories -- such as geocentrism, Steady State, or phlogiston -- fit your criteria of "magic". Yet ALL of them are still part of science.

Actually none of them are 'part of science' because they have been shown to be innaccurate theories of how things work.


A theory does not drop out of science simply because it is falsified. It simply moves from the very short list of currently valid theories to the very long list of falsified theories. After all, if scientific theories are falsifiABLE, it follows that they could be false. And being false can't affect their scientific status.

But being on that list means they aren't part of science. Just as we aren't trying to reinvent the lightbulb with the hundreds of things that DIDN'T work, we aren't going to do any more than reference the failures when learning how to build on the successes.

Just because those failed theories are still documented in our aggregated knowledge resources, that doesn't mean those failed theories are part of science.

They are the rejects of science.

[lucaspa]

lucaspa, you grant ID a status that it does not deserve: that of 'theory.' Given that it starts out with a statement rather than a question, it is debatable that it even deserves the title of 'hypothesis.'

Bluehorse, you have a mistaken notion about what hypothesis and theory are in science. It's not your fault. In K-12 we tend to teach that theories are "grown up" hypotheses and that you move to higher certainty as you go from hypothesis to theory to law.

Unfortunately, none of that is correct. Both hypotheses and theories are statements about the physical universe. Hypotheses tend to be more limited statements while theories are more general. However, if you read in the philosophy of science literature, you see that the terms "hypothesis" and "theory" are used interchangeably. "Laws" are theories. Up until about 1920 it was thought that we could have such certainty about some statements that we could say that they were absolutely true, and thus laws. We don't think that anymore and "law" is used only historically for theories that have traditionally been called "laws" such as Kepler's laws.

Hypotheses and theories can either be:
1. Untested. Such as String Theory or Ekpyrotic Theory.
2. Supported. Such as evolution or the General Theory of Relativity
3. Falsified or refuted. Such as phlogiston, Steady State Theory, or ID.

When I say "ID is a falsified scientific theory" I am making a much stronger statement about ID than you are. You are saying it may or may not be true. I am saying it is absolutely wrong.

[lucaspa]

But one doesn't falsify THEORIES. We falsify hypothesis - the testable statements derived from the theories.

No, we falsify theories. Read above. Theories and hypotheses are the same things: statements about the physical universe. And we don't derive hypotheses from theories. Hypotheses are derived and tested on their own. Look at most scientific papers and toward the end of the Introduction you will find the statement "we hypothesize that ... " That didn't come from theory.

From both theories and hypotheses you derive deductions of data that should be present if the theory/hypothesis is true. You then look for the deduction.

Actually none of them are 'part of science' because they have been shown to be innaccurate theories of how things work.

That doesn't drop them out of science. It just drops them out of the list of currently valid theories. Notice I said "currently". Because of the nature of both inductive and deductive logic, all our hypotheses and theories are held tentatively. Tomorrow they may be shown to be false. When that happens, they don't suddenly stop being science. Nor does the university I work for or NIH demand their money back because the work I put in on the falsified theory mean that I wasn't doing "science" at the time. They paid me to do science and suddenly, by your logic, what I was doing wasn't "science". Sure it was, and is.

Theories are tested in an attempt to show them to be wrong. As I said, if a scientific theory is falsifiable, that means that, from its inception, it was potentially false. So being false can't mean that a theory/hypothesis isn't part of science.

Just as we aren't trying to reinvent the lightbulb with the hundreds of things that DIDN'T work, we aren't going to do any more than reference the failures when learning how to build on the successes.

The failures are essential to the successes. What we do in practice in science is to falsify all the alternative theories we can think of. And we actually do reference "the hundreds of things that didn't work" when we do experiments: that's what the controls are for. The controls show every hypothesis/theory that did not work to explain the results. The only hypothesis/theory left standing is the one that failed to be falsified.

The problem with modern-day creationists is that they, as people, refuse to admit that the theory is falsified. That's a failing of creationists as people, not an indication that creationism is not a scientific theory.

[lucaspa]

.The thing that distinguishes science from magic is that science is done - whether to a correct or an incorrect result - from observation. Each of geocentrism, steady state and phlogiston was argued from observation.

Magic is done by wishing, by imagining. The rest are only aids to imagining, such as Yahweh’s magic words, or Harry Potter’s magic words, wands, magic objects and tokens of things the subject of magic (such as Goyle’s hair).

Sorry, but scientific theories come into existence by imagining. The origin of scientific theories -- including phlogiston, geocentrism, and Stead State -- is imagination. You have the outmoded and mistaken idea that hypotheses/theories are the digests of observations. Untrue.

"I thought that scientific theories were not the digest of observations, but that they were inventions -- conjectures boldly put forward for trial, to be eliminated if they clashed with observations, with observations which were rarely accidental but as a rule undertaken with the definite intention of testing a theory by obtaining, if possible, a decisive refutation." Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, 1963 p 38.

Observation comes after the theory/hypothesis is formulated. Theories are evaluated by observation.

So yes, creationists used imagination -- based on a literal reading of Genesis 1-8 -- to formulate a scientific theory. They then tested it against observations in the period 1700 - 1859 and found it to be wrong.

I’ve asked eg iama, Cephas, geologist and Mario the techniques they say Yahweh used eg to magic the universe into existence or to do ID tweaking. No reply.

What you are saying is that they can't give the manufacturing process that Yahweh used. But that is irrelevant. You don't need to know the manufacturing process in order to recognize that an object is manufactured. When the first stone tools from 1.5 million years ago were found, no one could say the 'techniques" used to "magic" them into existence. We simply didn't know. In that case stone tool making was a lost technique and it was possible to re-invent it. Even today we are not sure of the exact techniques to build the Pyramids. Nor do we know the "technique" to get the Big Bang.

Or take the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey. No one knew how the obelisk was manufactured but that didn't stop them from concluding that it was manufactured. Remember Arthur C. Clarke's famous axiom: "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinuishable from magic".

Creationism/ID hypothesizes that parts of the universe were manufactured in their present form and placed here. If the technology is sufficiently advanced, that looks like "magic" or "miracle".
What matters is not the technique, but the conseqeunces/deductions of that technique. And the deductions of ID where whole species or parts of species are manufactured in their present form are simply not found. Instead, the opposite is found: species and parts of species show unmistakable evidence of evolving from earlier structures.

As for the universe, I'm afraid that "God created the Big Bang" is still a viable scientific hypothesis. "God created" is also a viable hypothesis to answer the question "Why does the universe have the order it does and not some other order."

Now, there are other viable hypotheses as to the cause of the Big Bang and the particular order of the universe, so it is not valid to say "God created" must be correct. It may be correct, but we have insufficient data at present to say whether any of the proposed hypotheses -- including that one -- are correct. It's a classic case of multiple competing hypotheses with insufficient data to choose between them.

[Sinedeo]

Blu "Creationism is merely magic. It has no power to explain, predict or integrate with science generally."

That is the definition of a falsified theory. All falsified theories -- such as geocentrism, Steady State, or phlogiston -- fit your criteria of "magic". Yet ALL of them are still part of science. A theory does not drop out of science simply because it is falsified. It simply moves from the very short list of currently valid theories to the very long list of falsified theories. After all, if scientific theories are falsifiABLE, it follows that they could be false. And being false can't affect their scientific status.


As a lifelong atheist and a keen student of science, I am deeply hostile to creationism and its intelligent design kissing cousin. Both are the same attempt to smuggle religion into the classroom; to deny what is obviously true; and to posit a divinity where none is needed to explain the facts of the world.

But I think it is a significant category mistake to say, as you do, that a scientific theory can be true or false. Statements of fact can be true or false; nothing else can. A scientific theory is not a statement of fact, but is a conceptual model for making predictions. It is a mechanism for predicting, just as a telescope is a mechanism for seeing. Therefore a scientific theory can no more be true or false than a telescope can.

But just as some telescopes are excellent for seeing and some are poor, so are some scientific theories for predicting. And that, not in degree of "verification" or "falsification," is how scientific theories are to be weighed. It is not that the theory of evolution is "verified," or "true," but that it supplies very good predictions of what happens (or happened, when what happened is yet to be discovered) as life develops. It predicted, for example, the sometime existence of a quadrupedal fish/amphibian, and lo, one was discovered in the fossil record.

Equally, it is not that creationism as a theory (if indeed it even is a theory) is "false" or "falsified" (what ever on earth the latter could mean), but that it is patently unuseful for making predicitions on these same subjects.

There are those here who hold that a scientific theory can never be held to be true, but that it can nevertheless be held to be false (or "verified" and "falsified" if you like). That is an absurdity. If any proposition is capabable of being false or "falsifiable," it must be capable of being true or "verifiable." It is only that these people fail to understand that a scientific theory is unable to be true or false; and is able only to be useful or unuseful. In a loose sense we can say that an utterly unusful, even sham, theory like creationism is "false," but that is metaphoric.

I don't know what it means to be "falsifiable" except to make predicitions than can be seen either to come true or not. But if the predictions made on some basis persistently fail to come true, this does not imply that the given basis has been "falsified" (and "falsified" indeed is an adjective of very nebulous meaning, if it has any at all). It merely implies that it has proven to be unuseful.

[Sinedeo]

As for the universe, I'm afraid that "God created the Big Bang" is still a viable scientific hypothesis.

This statement is precisely not a scientific hypothesis because it does not yeild a prediction that is capable of coming true or failing to come true. In particular, it does not provide a method for distinguishing between God-caused Big Bangs and Big Bangs of "other" origin or indeed no origin at all but simply inexplicablilty in the same sense that God is supposed to be inexplicable.


"God created" is also a viable hypothesis to answer the question "Why does the universe have the order it does and not some other order."


Again this is no scientific hypothesis because no test is proposed for distinguising between what is a God-created order and what is "other-created," or not created at all but merely inexplicable.

[bluehorserunning]

Bluehorse, you have a mistaken notion about what hypothesis and theory are in science. It's not your fault. In K-12 we tend to teach that theories are "grown up" hypotheses and that you move to higher certainty as you go from hypothesis to theory to law.

I have a degree in biology, plus a few extra years of study, fyi, and I'm pretty darn sure that I have a good grasp of what 'theory' and 'hypothesis' mean in science. My definitions apparently do not jibe with yours, but you'll have to forgive me for not falling into line with you just on your say-so.

if you read in the philosophy of science literature, you see that the terms "hypothesis" and "theory" are used interchangeably.

The more I hear people attaching the word 'philosophy' to anything, the more I distain philosophy. I used to only disrespect metaphysics, but I begin to think that it's all handwaving and the construction of mountians out of molehills. All you are saying here is that the philosophical definition of 'theory' does not agree with the scientific definiton.

When I say "ID is a falsified scientific theory" I am making a much stronger statement about ID than you are. You are saying it may or may not be true. I am saying it is absolutely wrong.

You are using 'theory' in the lay sense - or, perhaps, the philosophical sense - of 'idea.' I disagree, however, that you are making a stronger statement. ID is not, and never was, science. It does not deserve the moniker 'theory' within a discussion of science. In casual lay conversation, calling it a theory can be gotten away with; in a discussion of science, it will be smacked down hard. Science has very little to say about the philosophical idea that life is too complex to have evolved without supernatural input. No matter what testing we try to do, that phrase 'too complex' can always be extended, taken elsewhere, applied to more, ask for more. It is not testable, any more than the statement that 'Thanksgiving is the best holiday,' is testable.

[Cephas]

http://www.texscience.org/reviews/biology-professor-letter.htm

More than one hundred biology faculty members from universities across Texas signed a letter sent Monday, December 10, 2007, to Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott saying Texas Education Agency employees should not have to remain neutral on evolution.

The letter is in response to the departure of former science curriculum director Christine Comer, who says she was forced to resign days after forwarding an email message her superiors said made the agency appear biased against alternatives to evolution. The agency said it must "remain neutral" on the subject of evolution vs. Creationism and used this as the primary justification for asking Ms. Comer to resign.


my 2 cents ..separate creation is a failed, incoherent and speculative explanation and evolution/common descent is neither controversial nor are there other scientifically valid alternative theories
Evolution isn't just common descent but natural selection and random mutation. That is not only controversial but hasn't been demonstrated scientifically. In fact, the science that has been done on evolution in real time says that it doesn't happen.

[Cephas]

One of the key passages in the letter is this:

"Principles of evolution are at the basis of human genomics and personalized medicine and are applied daily by people working in medicine, agriculture, engineering, and pharmaceuticals."

If we let creationism in, progress in medicine and related fields will decline. Period. The underpinnings of evolutionary science are a big part of why biology has advanced so far since Darwin.
Nonsense. The opposite is probably true. If we treat certian functions as designed then we can look at any evolutionary step as preceding from a design.

In fact, a study has found that a certian antibiotic was immune to single and double point mutations. The reason was that it took more than two evolutionary steps to overcome the antibiotic. It predicted with 99.9 percent confidence that the enzyme under study would not evolve resistence.

This is completely contrary to Darwinian evolution. If anti-biotics could be found that require a double CCC to counter, then they would never lose their effectiveness!

In matters of health, the dogma of Darwinism is getting in the way. It is important to distinquish between evolution and design.

[brightmoon]

as Evolution isn't just common descent but natural selection and random mutation. That is not only controversial but hasn't been demonstrated scientifically. In fact, the science that has been done on evolution in real time says that it doesn't happen.

cephas , that simply isnt true ..ive got a degree in biology, too ..someone lied to you big time

1 not all mutations are random so your tall tale about natural selection and random mutations doesnt fly

2evolution isnt controversial and hasnt been since the late 1880s

3 common descent is the obvious result of a continually changing genome.... darwin didnt like the term "evolution" ..he actually called it descent with modification

[Blü]

.
lucaspa

Sorry, but scientific theories come into existence by imagining. The origin of scientific theories -- including phlogiston, geocentrism, and Stead State -- is imagination. You have the outmoded and mistaken idea that hypotheses/theories are the digests of observations. Untrue.

The distinction I made was what you’re trying to do. In science you’re trying to give the best description and explanation of the data in terms of cause and effect (or with quantum phenomena, within the analogous rules). Of course all scientific theories begin as hypotheses. Of course the way to derive an hypothesis - and to find a way to test it or advance it, for that matter - is by imagination. Maxwell’s description of the field is one such prodigious leap of imagination. But all of the imagining was fed by observation and was in search of a description and explanation.

With magic your purpose and your method are different. You wish for X in reality (and perhaps you also wish that your wish will come true) and nothing more is needed - it just happens. Yahweh creates the universe in just this way - will is the traditional term. He doesn’t observe, he doesn’t calculate - he just uses a magic word. He and Harry Potter are good at this.

[iamachildofhis]

The following is quoted from the Texas Education Agency's response to Robert Scott's letter linked at your posted site:

[QUOTE]
"TEKS #7 Science concepts.

The student knows the theory of Biological Evolution.

The student is expected to:

(A) identify evidence of change in species using fossils, DNA sequences, anatomical ]similarities, physiological similarities, and embryology; and
(B) illustrate the results of natural selection in speciation, diversity, phylogeny, adaptation,
behavior, and extinction.

In addition, students in science from 3rd to 12th grade share the following science process:

TEKS #3 Science Processes.

The student uses critical thinking and scientific problem solving to make informed decisions.

The student is expected to:

(A) analyze review, and critique scientific explanations including hypotheses and theories,
as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information."


I will make comments using ()

The student is expected to:

(A) identify evidence of change in species using fossils,

(The fossil record does NOT 'evidence change in species'
The fossil record is no longer used by the speculation as 'evidence of change in species'!

The fossil record is the evidence of a catastrophic worldwide Flood!)

DNA sequences,

(There is absolutely no evidence of any molecular mechanism which would be capable of ADDING NEW INFORMATION in order to enable the speculation to become viable!

The Created DNA sequences are repeatedly used in plants, animals and humans. )

anatomical similarities,

(There is absolutely no evidence for the speculated ability of the addition of NEW INFORMATION to an original organism which would cause it to become a NEW organism!

Anatomical similarities exist, because DNA is the common replication system for plants, animals and humans. One Creator-God used the same DNA tool when specifically creating each individual "kind" of plant, animal and humans. )

physiological similarities,

(physiology; relating to the science of the functions of living organism, is not evidence of evolution from an original life-cell form.

Physiological similarities is evidence of a common Creator-God having created all individual "kinds" of plants, animals and humans!)

and embryology;

(Embryology! Is this Texas state still using fetal development of different "kinds" as evidence of your speculation???? Surely NOT!

"After his kind" is the law of reproduction established at the beginning - at the Creation of all things, plants, animals and humans included!)



and

(B) illustrate the results of natural selection in speciation,

(Natural selection does not ever result in the introduction of NEW GENETIC INFORMATION which would result in an organism becoming something other than the "kind" of plant, animal or human from which it reproduced. There is NO molecular machinery which is capable of adding NEW INFORMATION to the organism!

Natural selection most definitely happens, but the variations which are reproduced within each originally created "kind" NEVER results in anything but a variation of the originally created "kind"!)


diversity,

(Diversity is NOT an evidence of evolution!

There is most certainly great diversity of plant "kinds" and animal "kinds" and humans! )

phylogeny,

(The evolutionary history of a species is with all of its tree branches, is NEVER evidence of the origin of a species!

The documentation of the variations within the Created "kind" is not evidence for your speculation! There is simply NO evidence that there is anything but reproduction within the originally Created "kinds" of plants, animals and humans!)

adaptation,

(Adaptation to changes in habitat, etc., is not the result of your speculation!

The originally Created "kinds" of plants, animals and humans were designed having the reproductive potential for great variation which would enable each originally Created "kind" to survive in the different worldwide habitats.)


behavior,

(The speculation's imposed behavior relationships of plants, animals and humans is bogus.

All Created "kinds" were Created having genetic instinct evidences with respect to each "kind." Behavior is related to the originally Created "kinds".)


and extinction.

(Extinction according to your speculation happens when natural selection depletes the plant, animal or human population according to the speculation's purported mechanisms.

A great many of the originally Created "kinds" of plants, animals and humans became extinct at the time of the catastrophic Flood of Noah's time. Human irresponsibility with respect to the environment has been responsible for most extinctions.)


"The student uses critical thinking and scientific problem solving to make informed decisions.

The student is expected to:

(A) analyze review, and critique scientific explanations including hypotheses and theories,
as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information."

"Critical thinking and scientific problem solving" do not take place, ideally, when there is no controversy over which to be "critical."

Upon what basis would the speculation be "critically analyzed"?

Upon what basis would the speculation be "critiqued" with respect to its "hypothesis and theories" in the absence of the Creation, ID, etc., paradigms?

Upon what basis would the speculation be evaluated with respect to its strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information in the absence of the Creation, ED, etc., paradigms?


-

[Blü]

.
iama

The fossil record is the evidence of a catastrophic worldwide Flood!

No it isn't. You also know it isn't, so you're making deliberately untrue statements - not a good look.

And you know, because (for example) you've never been able to offer a reasoned answer to even one point on my old Genesis Flood link (http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=821&discussionID=498207), that no Genesis Flood happened in reality - and that's only one of the very many demonstrations you've been given both that there was no Genesis Flood and that the bible is severely errant.

And the rest of your post is of the same who-needs-facts-when-I-can-dream? kind.

[thesparky]

iama says:

"Upon what basis would the speculation be "critically analyzed"?

By the evidence of course. Just because you are too blinkered to see any it doesn't follow that others will be.

"Upon what basis would the speculation be "critiqued" with respect to its "hypothesis and theories" in the absence of the Creation, ID, etc., paradigms?"

Last time I checked yecs were asking that creationism be taught alongside the scientific theory. Leaving aside the incredible assumptions of this proposal, you now make it clear that there can be no purely scientific analysis after all. In other words you have gone beyond what even your extremist pals ask for. Equal time. When will you understand that even if a piece of evidence turns out to be wrong, that doesn't mean it can't be critically analysed.

"Upon what basis would the speculation be evaluated with respect to its strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information in the absence of the Creation, ED, etc., paradigms?"

And this is what you can look forward to folks if you ever decide that any one flavour of creationism deserves above others to be taught alongside scientific theories. What you'll end up with is fist thumping assertions that only god matters, ie religion and not one whit of understanding of how to look at the world through an open mind, ie science.

[KWinters]

No, we falsify theories. Read above. Theories and hypotheses are the same things: statements about the physical universe. And we don't derive hypotheses from theories. Hypotheses are derived and tested on their own. Look at most scientific papers and toward the end of the Introduction you will find the statement "we hypothesize that ... " That didn't come from theory.

I TEACH the philosophy of science and research design. At the undergraduate and post-graduate levels. You're wrong. Theories and hypotheses are not the same things.

And if you look at articles, of course the outcomes of the hypotheses will be generated from the theories. If they were just random predictions, not informed by anything then you'd have no reason to have a theory. You could just have a string of random hypotheses without any coherent thread linking them together.



Deductive reasoning works from the "general" to the "specific". '

'The deductive reasoning works as follows: think of a theory about topic and then narrow it down to specific hypothesis (hypothesis that we test or can test). Narrow down further if we would like to collect observations for hypothesis (note that we collect observations to accept or reject hypothesis and the reason we do that is to confirm or refute our original theory). In a conclusion, when we use deduction we reason from general principles to specific cases, as in applying a mathematical theorem to a particular problem or in citing a law of physics to predict the outcome of an experiment.'

Theory

↓

Hypothesis

↓

Observation

↓

Confirmation

Deduction Reasoning


-Deduction and Induction



From both theories and hypotheses you derive deductions of data that should be present if the theory/hypothesis is true. You then look for the deduction.



That doesn't drop them out of science. It just drops them out of the list of currently valid theories. Notice I said "currently". Because of the nature of both inductive and deductive logic, all our hypotheses and theories are held tentatively. Tomorrow they may be shown to be false. When that happens, they don't suddenly stop being science. Nor does the university I work for or NIH demand their money back because the work I put in on the falsified theory mean that I wasn't doing "science" at the time. They paid me to do science and suddenly, by your logic, what I was doing wasn't "science". Sure it was, and is.

Theories are tested in an attempt to show them to be wrong. As I said, if a scientific theory is falsifiable, that means that, from its inception, it was potentially false. So being false can't mean that a theory/hypothesis isn't part of science.



The failures are essential to the successes. What we do in practice in science is to falsify all the alternative theories we can think of. And we actually do reference "the hundreds of things that didn't work" when we do experiments: that's what the controls are for. The controls show every hypothesis/theory that did not work to explain the results. The only hypothesis/theory left standing is the one that failed to be falsified.

The problem with modern-day creationists is that they, as people, refuse to admit that the theory is falsified. That's a failing of creationists as people, not an indication that creationism is not a scientific theory.[/quote]

[KWinters]

Sorry, but scientific theories come into existence by imagining. The origin of scientific theories -- including phlogiston, geocentrism, and Stead State -- is imagination. You have the outmoded and mistaken idea that hypotheses/theories are the digests of observations. Untrue.

Observation comes after the theory/hypothesis is formulated. Theories are evaluated by observation.

Yes, DEductively. But INductively the observations come first and then theories are constructed.

Quantum physics is an example of theories derived inductively. Scientists observed behaviours they could not account for and then came up with possible explanations to account for their observations.

[KWinters]

I have a degree in biology, plus a few extra years of study, fyi, and I'm pretty darn sure that I have a good grasp of what 'theory' and 'hypothesis' mean in science. My definitions apparently do not jibe with yours, but you'll have to forgive me for not falling into line with you just on your say-so.



The more I hear people attaching the word 'philosophy' to anything, the more I distain philosophy. I used to only disrespect metaphysics, but I begin to think that it's all handwaving and the construction of mountians out of molehills. All you are saying here is that the philosophical definition of 'theory' does not agree with the scientific definiton.

bhr, don't let L put you off the philosophy of science. :-) It does use terms in the same way, and there are some compelling and interesting debates, both ontologically and epistemelogically. If you have a chance, there is a very good series available from OUP, A Very Short Introduction.

If you ever have the chance, check it out: http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Science-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/0192802836/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198939916&sr=8-1

[OmarKhayyam]

"There is absolutely no evidence of any molecular mechanism which would be capable of ADDING NEW INFORMATION in order to enable the speculation{speciation? ED.} to become viable!"


This statement is wrong as simple fact but more than that the way it is phrased reflects a flawed (being kind) understanding of what ToE actual says.

As genes are reproduced errors occur. Most of those errors are harmless, some detrimental to the organism and some few actually helpful. As the organism competes for survival those "errors" that are detrimental are weeded out and those that are advantageous thrive and are are slowly, very slowly, spread thur out the species. But there is no "goal." Evolution is not trying to produce anything. That is one of the beauties of the system. It works w/o any preconceived ideas about what it producing or where it is going. Simple day to day survival is the test - no more no less. And it is ruthless and exact. Get lunch w/o being lunch, survive. And the next day do the same thing again, and the next day yet again.

The above statement reflects a failure to understand this dynamic. It also ignores the obvious fact that children are not exact copies of their parents.

Genesis is charming poetry and comforting myth. It is NOT science.

[teilhard]

"There is absolutely no evidence of any molecular mechanism which would be capable of ADDING NEW INFORMATION in order to enable the speculation{speciation? ED.} to become viable!"


This statement is wrong as simple fact but more than that the way it is phrased reflects a flawed (being kind) understanding of what ToE actual says.

As genes are reproduced errors occur. Most of those errors are harmless, some detrimental to the organism and some few actually helpful. As the organism competes for survival those "errors" that are detrimental are weeded out and those that are advantageous thrive and are are slowly, very slowly, spread thur out the species. But there is no "goal." Evolution is not trying to produce anything. That is one of the beauties of the system. It works w/o any preconceived ideas about what it producing or where it is going. Simple day to day survival is the test - no more no less. And it is ruthless and exact. Get lunch w/o being lunch, survive. And the next day do the same thing again, and the next day yet again.

The above statement reflects a failure to understand this dynamic. It also ignores the obvious fact that children are not exact copies of their parents.

Genesis is charming poetry and comforting myth. It is NOT science.

The strangely Sweet IRONY
is that The Fundamentalist-"Creation-ist" Guys
and The Fundamentalist-"Atheist" Folks
may the SAME Error -- in mirror image -- ,
i.e.,
asserting or insisting that
"Genesis" IS or OUGHT to be "Science,"
when it is obviousy NOT ..

[Blü]

.
teilhard

Atheists assert or insist that "Genesis" IS or OUGHT to be "Science," when it is obviousy NOT .. ?

Do they? Who? Where?

[Ken]

The strangely Sweet IRONY
is that The Fundamentalist-"Creation-ist" Guys
and The Fundamentalist-"Atheist" Folks
may the SAME Error -- in mirror image -- ,
i.e.,
asserting or insisting that
"Genesis" IS or OUGHT to be "Science,"
when it is obviousy NOT ..I don't know of a single atheist who insists that Genesis is or ought to be science. And neither do you. On the contrary, it's the creationists who insist that it's science and the atheists who tell them it's not.

[iamachildofhis]

iama says: "Upon what basis would the speculation be "critically analyzed"?

By the evidence of course. Just because you are too blinkered to see any it doesn't follow that others will be.



What evidence?

The only evidence which I am aware of is evidence of variation within a CREATED "kind."

There is NEVER any evidence of a molecular mechanism which is speculated to be capable of ADDING NEW GENETIC INFORMATION such that a NEW organism has resulted.

There are NO transitionals!




iama: "Upon what basis would the speculation be "critiqued" with respect to its "hypothesis and theories" in the absence of the Creation, ID, etc., paradigms?"

Last time I checked yecs were asking that creationism be taught alongside the scientific theory. Leaving aside the incredible assumptions of this proposal, you now make it clear that there can be no purely scientific analysis after all. In other words you have gone beyond what even your extremist pals ask for. Equal time. When will you understand that even if a piece of evidence turns out to be wrong, that doesn't mean it can't be critically analyzed.

Pardon me??

There is NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY - there is only a speculation!

Let's get something straight!

CREATION has to do with the ORIGIN of the Earth/Universe and "all that in them is," and legitimate Science can NEVER relate/operate beyond that barrier. CREATION is a Creator-God activity - ONLY!

CREATION SCIENCE is based upon presuppositions which are based upon biblical history - the effects which are evidenced post-Creation - what has happened in Earth/Universe history subsequent to the CREATION can be dealt with according to the Scientific Method of Investigation. All legitimate Scientists do so every day!

Two Creation Science presuppositions:

1. - There was an imposition upon the CREATION of the "law of sin and death" post the CREATION.
2. - There was a worldwide flood with all of its ramifications.



If - IF - Science is dealing with an aspect of the post-CREATION Earth/Universe history, which would have been affected by either "the law of sin and death" or the Flood and all of its ramifications, then an unbiased scientist would be willing to consider the possibilities and derive hypotheses based upon the possibilities, instead of intellectually, emotionally, willfully and humanistically avoiding and rejecting those parameters.

The reason that "speculation"-believing-humans reject and refuse to entertain the possibilities, is a spirit/heart issue. They are refusing to believe/denying - humanistically - that they are accountable, eternally, for their individual "heart issues choices" to their Creator-God!



The "speculation" has NO abiogenesis paradigm - and admits (even though the claim is that the "speculation" does not relate to abiogenesis) that abiogenesis research is a great distance away from solving the origin of that original-speculated-beginning-life-form, but it unashamedly glombs onto the CREATED life-form-"kinds" and imposes upon them..... the speculation!! How crass! How deceptive! How evil - the lie!

Creation is the reality origin of everything.

The speculation has been imposed upon "everything," (biology and geology are not the only ones tainted) by scientists who have NO EVIDENCE that their speculation has happened! You call your humanistic speculation "origin of species" when in reality, you have no "origin" evidence of anything!

In the Science classroom, from K-12 to graduate university, Science instruction and Science activities should ONLY be relating to that for which there is ACTUAL evidence. The terminology should not be slippery and ill-defined, and there should be an expectation on the part of the students that their instructors are, indeed, presenting to them, and exposing them to, that which is in actuality evidenced.

If the instructor ventures into the "speculation" arena, then the students should immediately understand, "we are now speculating." There should be absolutely NO COVER-UPS. NO DECEPTIONS. NO MONEY makes lying necessary. NO SPECULATION vs CREATIONISM, etc.

Science, especially in the fields of biology, geology, etc., have sunk low, especially in academia circles!

Philosophies should not be ruling and reigning in the science arena!

Science is supposed to be above the politics, etc.!

Everything should always be critically analyzed! I am stating that the "speculation" has been babied and protected and allowed to rule and reign, all the while being a lie!




iama: "Upon what basis would the speculation be evaluated with respect to its strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information in the absence of the Creation, ED, etc., paradigms?"

And this is what you can look forward to folks if you ever decide that any one flavour of creationism deserves above others to be taught alongside scientific theories. What you'll end up with is fist thumping assertions that only god matters, ie religion and not one whit of understanding of how to look at the world through an open mind, ie science.

Just what are you defending?

It certainly isn't PURE SCIENCE!

Science, if it is really legitimate evidentially based human endeavor, should welcome rigorous evaluation and falsification. The results should be, then, published widely. Let the science stand or fall upon the Scientific Method parameters.

What are the "speculation" humans afraid of??

In any field of science activity, there should be NO limitations placed upon the activity, other than morality responsibilities.

"Speculation" humans do not have an "open mind," because they are rejecting the truth.

An open mind doesn't mean that you allow everything to enter and "nest' in your thinking framework, but it does mean that you are willing to consider unbiased-ly all possibilities.


-

[redwood_myst]

There is NEVER any evidence of a molecular mechanism which is speculated to be capable of ADDING NEW GENETIC INFORMATION such that a NEW organism has resulted.

Let me be the first to introduce you to some real science: go read up on genetic indels, genetic translocation, and genetic duplication of strings of genetic material up to and including polyploidy. All of them introduce new genetic materials to the genome and all of them have been observed: "Wheat, for example, after millennia of hybridization and modification by humans, has strains that are diploid (two sets of chromosomes), tetraploid (four sets of chromosomes) with the common name of durum or macaroni wheat, and hexaploid (six sets of chromosomes) with the common name of bread wheat."

And it doesn't matter how many CAPITAL letters you use to INFLATE your opinion; real science fact trumps your erroneous, unsubstantiated and uneducated assertion. You are just wrong.

Two Creation Science presuppositions:

1. - There was an imposition upon the CREATION of the "law of sin and death" post the CREATION.
2. - There was a worldwide flood with all of its ramifications.

Then we can toss creationism out on its stinky behind because there was no worldwide flood. Let me say that again: there was no worldwide flood. There is no evidence of a worldwide flood. There is an abundance of evidence against a worldwide flood. There was no worldwde flood.

And there was never anything scientific in creation "science" ---- apologetics dressed in a lab coat is still just apologetics. The only interesting question about Biblical creationism is why this branch of Christianity is so insecure as to need to fake scientific proof in the first place.

The reason that "speculation"-believing-humans reject and refuse to entertain the possibilities, is a spirit/heart issue. They are refusing to believe/denying - humanistically - that they are accountable, eternally, for their individual "heart issues choices" to their Creator-God!

First off, you owe an immediate apology to every theist that believes in God and that accepts evolution. Unless you have psychic abilities as big as your ego, you have no way to know what is between a person and their God. You simply are indulging your need to demonize people who believe differently than you, even when they accept the same Savior as you. That says a whole lot more about you than it does about them.

Second, the reason people think evolution is the best explanation for how life developed on Earth is because that is where the evidence leads. And no matter how you chose to break your own commandments and lie about the people doing this work, it has nothing to do with your religion and your interpretation of the Bible. Your version of Christianity simply isn't that central to most people in the world --- they don't need to deny it. I know it is probably very difficult for you to wrap your mind around the concept of following the evidence where it leads and letting it shape your hypothesis and theories, but that is how real science works.

And that is why Biblical creationism is not science and will never be more than a minority reading of one holy book out of hundreds.


RM

[Blü]

.
iama

what has happened in Earth/Universe history subsequent to the CREATION can be dealt with according to the Scientific Method of Investigation. All legitimate Scientists do so every day!

And that legitimate investigation shows, for example, that there was never Special Creation nor a Genesis Flood. But you know that.


[Science?] ... admits ... that abiogenesis research is a great distance away from solving the origin of that original-speculated-beginning-life-form

But you can read the bible from cover to cover and never find out how life came into being. Perhaps you can tell us what technique Yahweh used? It appears to have been magic. If that’s right, tell us how magic works.

If you can’t tell us that, then the only way you’re ever going to find out how life began is by asking science.


An open mind doesn't mean that you allow everything to enter and "nest' in your thinking framework, but it does mean that you are willing to consider unbiased-ly all possibilities.

But of course the claim that ‘the bible read literally is inerrant’ is an hypothesis busted by transparent and logical argument from examinable evidence, and you’ve never once offered a reasoned argument either for biblical inerrancy or against the evidence that blows it out of the water.

So it’s time for you to follow your own ‘open mind’ precepts and say, ‘Well, I was fond of biblical inerrancy, but in all honesty I can’t deny it’s busted. So it’s time I moved my thinking on.’

[brightmoon]

[quote=iamachildofhis;171385]




The student is expected to:

(A) identify evidence of change in species using fossils,

(The fossil record does NOT 'evidence change in species'
The fossil record is no longer used by the speculation as 'evidence of change in species'!
yes it does..... it's even detailed enough to show slow gradual change in some species

The fossil record is the evidence of a catastrophic worldwide Flood!)
this is simply a blatant lie

DNA sequences,

(There is absolutely no evidence of any molecular mechanism which would be capable of ADDING NEW INFORMATION in order to enable the speculation to become viable!
this nonsense is just a typical creo misunderstanding of information theory and how it applies to living organisms ...unlike in creo assertions and misunderstandings, living organisms do not act like phone messages where adding information causes echoes, static, dropouts, and/or a garbled message

The Created DNA sequences are repeatedly used in plants, animals and humans.

genetic similarities imply common descent ..you most are genetically similar to your siblings & that implies a common parentage

anatomical similarities,

(There is absolutely no evidence for the speculated ability of the addition of NEW INFORMATION to an original organism which would cause it to become a NEW organism!

Anatomical similarities exist, because DNA is the common replication system for plants, animals and humans. One Creator-God used the same DNA tool when specifically creating each individual "kind" of plant, animal and humans. )

detailed anatomical similarities exist because of similar genetics ..see above

physiological similarities,

(physiology; relating to the science of the functions of living organism, is not evidence of evolution from an original life-cell form.

Physiological similarities is evidence of a common Creator-God having created all individual "kinds" of plants, animals and humans!)
detailed physiological similarities exist because of similar genetics ..see above
and embryology;

(Embryology! Is this Texas state still using fetal development of different "kinds" as evidence of your speculation???? Surely NOT!

"After his kind" is the law of reproduction established at the beginning - at the Creation of all things, plants, animals and humans included!)

detailed embryological similarities exist because of similar genetics ..see above

and

(B) illustrate the results of natural selection in speciation,

(Natural selection does not ever result in the introduction of NEW GENETIC INFORMATION which would result in an organism becoming something other than the "kind" of plant, animal or human from which it reproduced. There is NO molecular machinery which is capable of adding NEW INFORMATION to the organism!

Natural selection most definitely happens, but the variations which are reproduced within each originally created "kind" NEVER results in anything but a variation of the originally created "kind"!)

simply a lie or a silly delusion ...your choice

diversity,

(Diversity is NOT an evidence of evolution!

There is most certainly great diversity of plant "kinds" and animal "kinds" and humans! )
diversity is the RESULT of evolution so yes it is evidence of evolution

phylogeny,

(The evolutionary history of a species is with all of its tree branches, is NEVER evidence of the origin of a species!
what the heck does this mean? a phylogeny is basically a family tree

The documentation of the variations within the Created "kind" is not evidence for your speculation! There is simply NO evidence that there is anything but reproduction within the originally Created "kinds" of plants, animals and humans!)

adaptation,

(Adaptation to changes in habitat, etc., is not the result of your speculation!

adaptations are features of an organism that are derived through natural selection...


The originally Created "kinds" of plants, animals and humans were designed having the reproductive potential for great variation which would enable each originally Created "kind" to survive in the different worldwide habitats.)

this kind of super-evolutionary reproductive variation is not possible ....no organisms evolve that quickly .....


behavior,

(The speculation's imposed behavior relationships of plants, animals and humans is bogus.

All Created "kinds" were Created having genetic instinct evidences with respect to each "kind." Behavior is related to the originally Created "kinds".)

behavior evolves according to how the environment treats the organism ..maladaptive behaviors tend to die out through natural selection

and extinction.

(Extinction according to your speculation happens when natural selection depletes the plant, animal or human population according to the speculation's purported mechanisms.

A great many of the originally Created "kinds" of plants, animals and humans became extinct at the time of the catastrophic Flood of Noah's time. Human irresponsibility with respect to the environment has been responsible for most extinctions.)

extinction leaves ecological niches bare ...other organisms will evolve to fill those niches ..happened to mammals after the great dinosaur extinction 65 mya ...humans werent even around then

"The student uses critical thinking and scientific problem solving to make informed decisions.

The student is expected to:

(A) analyze review, and critique scientific explanations including hypotheses and theories,
as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information."

"Critical thinking and scientific problem solving" do not take place, ideally, when there is no controversy over which to be "critical."

Upon what basis would the speculation be "critically analyzed"?

Upon what basis would the speculation be "critiqued" with respect to its "hypothesis and theories" in the absence of the Creation, ID, etc., paradigms?

Upon what basis would the speculation be evaluated with respect to its strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information in the absence of the Creation, ED, etc., paradigms?



a critical review of a valid theory ...from a high schooler?..that's a joke
..this is a complete and utter waste of time

oh, and please define "kinds"

[brightmoon]

And it doesn't matter how many CAPITAL letters you use to INFLATE your opinion,[Iama]; real science fact trumps your erroneous, unsubstantiated and uneducated assertion. You are just wrong.


agreed, you ARE just wrong, iama ...and i can use capitals and underlining if you like....... WRONG

[iamachildofhis]

.
iama

The fossil record is the evidence of a catastrophic worldwide Flood!

No it isn't. You also know it isn't, so you're making deliberately untrue statements - not a good look.

And you know, because (for example) you've never been able to offer a reasoned answer to even one point on my old Genesis Flood link (http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=821&discussionID=498207), that no Genesis Flood happened in reality - and that's only one of the very many demonstrations you've been given both that there was no Genesis Flood and that the bible is severely errant.

And the rest of your post is of the same who-needs-facts-when-I-can-dream? kind.

Well Blu, I went and started to make a reply to your insistent link:


The Flood Hypothesis predicts that -

* We will find technology dated before 2,000 BCE that is capable of building a wooden boat 500 feet long or more, and capable of staying at sea fully loaded from (what we might call, if we ignore that it's a lunar calendar) 17 Feb 600 to 27 Feb 601 - a year or more.

Iama: Take a look at the following. There are more pages/links available at the bottom of each page:

http://s8int.com/index.html

http://s8int.com/sophis1.html

http://s8int.com/page2.html

http://s8int.com/page3.html

http://www.s8int.com/




No such technology has been found - nor anything resembling it. (A short summary of known ancient ship technology is here.)

iama: Lot's of interested parties are still looking:

http://s8int.com/noahsark1.html

http://s8int.com/noahsark4.html


No wooden boat of Ark size has ever been shown to have been made, let alone a sea-worthy ones. Some evidence from descriptions raises the possibility that the Chinese made very large treasure ships, though no such large examples have been found.

The prediction fails completely.

Iama: Not so, Blu.

Not the way that I read it!

But then, you are of the folk who deny, deny, deny!


-

[Blü]

.
iama

I see a lot of Creationist sites in your links.

Life (as you know) is too short to waste time on Creationist sites.

So just point me to the one definitive piece of evidence on which you rely and I promise to consider it.

[brightmoon]

But then, you are of the folk who deny, deny, deny!

problems with a global flood
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

but that's only cuz we've got evidence, evidence, evidence, and even more evidence; that this so-called global flood never happened, couldnt have happened, and in fact didnt happen ...and guess what, all of our evidence is verifiable

[colossians3_12]

Iama: "Science, if it is really legitimate evidentially based human endeavor, should welcome rigorous evaluation and falsification. The results should be, then, published widely. Let the science stand or fall upon the Scientific Method parameters."

As is precisely the case. "Published widely"? Oh, yes . . . thousands and thousands of peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals, all supporting the Theory of Evolution.

How ironic that your own words give you the lie.

Leigh

[Ridcully]

Let me be the first to introduce you to some real science: go read up on genetic indels, genetic translocation, and genetic duplication of strings of genetic material up to and including polyploidy....

RM, Iama has been given similar info in the past. It appears to make have no effect.

[Ridcully]

.
iama

I see a lot of Creationist sites in your links.

Life (as you know) is too short to waste time on Creationist sites.

So just point me to the one definitive piece of evidence on which you rely and I promise to consider it.

I took a look at Iama's first link. I think I've seen that one before. It's almost like watching an old slap-stick movie it's so insipid. But you're right, it's a waste of time to read that sort of stuff as a rule.


BTW, Iama, did you know that there are about 1.5 million species and that estimates commonly indicate there are about twice that many species that exist on our planet? Doesn't leave much room on an large wooden boat does it? Never mind all those species that require unique habits and diets to live. Just like a wooden boat of 500 feet, the whole notion sinks under its own weight.

[Blü]

.
Never mind.

Let iama nominate his best evidence, and then live with what he's said.

[thesparky]

Iama says:

"What evidence?"

Here's how I see it. Evidence is any piece of information from which something can be inferred. For instance, a new car turned up on the drive of my neighbour's house on Dec 24th. From this piece of information, I considered the most likely explanation to be that it was a christmas present from husband to wife or vice versa. Then a new piece of evidence turned up. It turns out that a family relative was staying over christmas, and furthermore, that when she left to go home, the car was no longer there. I now consider the most likely explanation to be the one that you have probably inferred as well. If I subsequently find that the relation doesn't drive or doesn't own a car, I could falsify that explanation. I would also be left with new inferences to consider.

But I would still be looking for the kind of explanation that would satisfy my human mind, that would fit in with all my previous experiences of people and things. For instance I didn't seriously consider that aliens had invaded next door and disguised their spaceship as a mini whilst they carried out a yuletide session of anal probing. I also didn't think it likely that they stole the car and then sold it, or that they renovated their old car to look like a new one, but if any new clues turn up, who knows!

I hope you'll take my modest example as it was intended, that evidence is evidence regardless of subsequent conclusions. I probably did show bias in my likely conclusion and perhaps did not consider the alien explanation seriously enough, especially as it seems many people are convinced that alien abductions are real. So I suppose I have to keep that option open, albeit reluctantly.

Evidence for evolution is real. Even under dispute, it is still there. It must be or there wouldn't be anything TO dispute.

[thesparky]

Iama says:

"Everything should always be critically analyzed! I am stating that the "speculation" has been babied and protected and allowed to rule and reign, all the while being a lie!"

And is this the kind of thing you'll be teaching kids in your classroom of the future? Why not just hang up a punchbag marked "evolution lies!" in class? Then you can make your point succinctly without wasting valuable god time.

"Science, if it is really legitimate evidentially based human endeavor, should welcome rigorous evaluation and falsification. The results should be, then, published widely. Let the science stand or fall upon the Scientific Method parameters."

Absolutely! Now are you going to allow critical examination of these presuppositions of yours? Namely:

"1. - There was an imposition upon the CREATION of the "law of sin and death" post the CREATION.
2. - There was a worldwide flood with all of its ramifications."

Because it seems that your fine words about standing and falling don't apply here do they? You won't be inviting students to rigorously evaluate those propositions. Your lofty statement means nothing.

"Your rationalistic humanistic thinking - your intellect - is completely void of comprehension regarding what it is like to read the Bible as a believer. God-Holy Spirit actively makes the Bible come alive with meaning/understanding/truths."

My shortcomings will no doubt be revealed. In the meantime I'm more interested in exploring whether you are right in your assertions or not. As far as the bible goes, I see that you allow no other choice for any other person to believe any other position except the one that you hold. And far from being embarrased at your arrogance, you actually think that you are simply following the truth of the bible. Yet you refuse to allow all of those other christians their different opinions, or listen then they tell you that they too find meaning and truth in the bible.

[iamachildofhis]

.
As is precisely the case. "Published widely"? Oh, yes . . . thousands and thousands of peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals, all supporting the Theory of Evolution.

How ironic that your own words give you the lie.



Did you read the following articles re: the suppression of evidence which contradicted your speculation? For shame!

http://s8int.com/truesuppressions.html

http://s8int.com/hueyatlaco.html



What's Wrong with Science?

http://s8int.com/wrong-science.html



Your reliance upon "peer reviewed" journals presenting fairly, is evidence of your presuppositions, etc., blinding you to what is really taking place! Do you approve of what happened to this scientist? I surely hope not!

The speculation's watchdogs "got her!" Your unbiased science arena has gone to the dogs.





-

[iamachildofhis]

.
BTW, Iama, did you know that there are about 1.5 million species and that estimates commonly indicate there are about twice that many species that exist on our planet? Doesn't leave much room on an large wooden boat does it? Never mind all those species that require unique habits and diets to live. Just like a wooden boat of 500 feet, the whole notion sinks under its own weight.
.


Did you know that the Bible does not use your speculation's "species" term? The biblical term is <I>bara</I> - "kind."

Are you aware of the fact that the fossil evidence tells us that many plant, animal and human fossils indicate that life-forms were much larger than present day representatives? Reptiles don't stop growing throughout their life-times. So small representatives of reptiles were on the ark. Also other animals which boarded the ark could also have been juveniles. If you have only a male and a female of each "kind" on the ark, you can eliminate the vast majority or your above mentioned "species." The average size of most animals is not that large, when you begin to evaluate juveniles. Many calculations have been made based upon these parameters, and the conclusion is that there was more than enough room/space!



-

[Blü]

.
iama

I asked you above to point to the one definitive piece of evidence on which you rely in all that linked stuff you posted.

Interested to hear what it is, precisely.

[iamachildofhis]

Iama says: "What evidence?"

.... evidence is evidence regardless of subsequent conclusions.

I have no problem with "evidence" if it is indeed evidence.

The position which I am defending has to do with the presuppositions which are being used as the foundation upon which the speculation is based.

Unbiased human science activity would not only be willing to follow the direction which the science activity leads to re: conclusions, etc., but it would also - initially - be willing to entertain the possibility that, for instance, Earth history has not always followed "uniformitarian" parameters. The speculation-adhering -cientists have a closed mind regarding a built-in law of sin and death, even though sin and death are in reality, certainly, evident historically. There is undeniable evidence of a universal flood, but closed-minded speculation-presuppositons reign in academia.




Evidence for evolution is real. Even under dispute, it is still there. It must be or there wouldn't be anything TO dispute.

Not so.

The prolific reality which you speak of, above, regarding "species" evidence, is misleading. "Kinds" is the biblical designation regarding the separation of plants and animals into related groupings. The Created "kinds" of plants and animals, and their related variations are the only reproductive entities which are RELATED because of reproduction "after his kind."

The speculation, using the term "species" counts all variations as having "evolved."

You are calling this "evolution," when in reality it is not.

There is no natural molecular mechanism which would, within the reproductive "kind" barrier, reproduce an offspring which would be able to be identified as a New "kind."

Our Creator-God created "kinds" which have always, and which will always only reproduce "after his kind."

A representative "kind" is not/is never related to any other representative "kind."

Geneticists are recently identifying parameters within the genetics of each created "kind" which ensure that "after his kind" is the reality.

When the Journal of Creation articles which I posted elsewhere become available in pdf form, you will be able to evaluate the data/conclusions given.


-

[iamachildofhis]

.
Iama says: "Everything should always be critically analyzed! I am stating that the "speculation" has been babied and protected and allowed to rule and reign, all the while being a lie!"

And is this the kind of thing you'll be teaching kids in your classroom of the future? Why not just hang up a punchbag marked "evolution lies!" in class? Then you can make your point succinctly without wasting valuable god time.
/

The science classroom should be teaching reality, evidenced, etc., information, according to the Scientific Method of Investigation's parameters.

Now, IF you call "origins" Science, and you agree that "origins" should be covered in the Science classroom, then, ALL ORIGINS - all representative-of-the-community-origins paradigms - should be fairly represented in the classroom. Then, the critical aspect of Science education and practice, should prevail as the "origin"-parameters are critiqued by the students. There will always be students in every classroom who will be knowledgeable enough, or represent homes which would be able to supply specifics re: their origins presuppositions.

You present an unfair situation re: your "punch-bag." Critical thinking should be attacking the issue/problem, and not the person holding the presuppositions.


iama: "Science, if it is really legitimate, evidentially based human endeavor, should welcome rigorous evaluation and falsification. The results should be, then, published widely. Let the science stand or fall upon the Scientific Method parameters."

Absolutely! Now are you going to allow critical examination of these presuppositions of yours? Namely:

"1. - There was an imposition upon the CREATION of the "law of sin and death" post the CREATION.
2. - There was a worldwide flood with all of its ramifications."
.

Most certainly! Why not? The evidence is there. The data is there.

By the way, the evidence and the data are actually the same for all "origins" paradigms.
It is the conclusions which differ.

Critical thinking skills would be first taught, and then employed.

Under the supervision of a fair and open-minded instructor, it would be one of the most memorable and productive classes.




Because it seems that your fine words about standing and falling don't apply here do they? You won't be inviting students to rigorously evaluate those propositions. Your lofty statement means nothing.


Not so!

What would happen would be that all of a sudden, there would be an alternative conclusion which would stand or fall based upon the different presuppositons presented and the resulting different conclusions. The student would have the opportunity, FINALLY, to critique the speculation in the light of new information. That would be a good science experience. Don't you think?


[]QUOTE
iama: "Your rationalistic humanistic thinking - your intellect - is completely void of comprehension regarding what it is like to read the Bible as a believer. God-Holy Spirit actively makes the Bible come alive with meaning/understanding/truths."

My shortcomings will no doubt be revealed. In the meantime I'm more interested in exploring whether you are right in your assertions or not. As far as the bible goes, I see that you allow no other choice for any other person to believe any other position except the one that you hold. And far from being embarrased at your arrogance, you actually think that you are simply following the truth of the bible. Yet you refuse to allow all of those other christians their different opinions, or listen then they tell you that they too find meaning and truth in the bible.[/QUOTE]

How do you define TRUTH?

How wide a path would you allow yourself, if the center of the path represented pure-truth?

The Bible states that our Creator-God "has no shadow of turning." He doesn't stray. He doesn't fudge. He is always TRUTH.

Do you call that "arrogance" on God's part?

Truth is Truth.

The standard by which we are being judged, is not my standard - certainly not!

The Standard by which we all are being judged, is the character of our Creator-God, Himself.

And that is the problem.

We can NEVER measure up to His Standard of righteousness.

The Bible NEVER diminishes the righteous Standard, either.

Again, I represent Him as He is revealed to us in His Word, the Bible.

If "the others" chose to follow their own standard(s), that still does not eliminate the one TRUE STANDARD. He NEVER changes. Don't blame me. I only represent Him to you. You don't have to do with me. You are accountable only to Him. I am accountable only to Him, also.



-

[SamAnderson]

Did you know that the Bible does not use your speculation's "species" term? The biblical term is <I>bara</I> - "kind."

Are you aware of the fact that the fossil evidence tells us that many plant, animal and human fossils indicate that life-forms were much larger than present day representatives? Reptiles don't stop growing throughout their life-times. So small representatives of reptiles were on the ark. Also other animals which boarded the ark could also have been juveniles. If you have only a male and a female of each "kind" on the ark, you can eliminate the vast majority or your above mentioned "species." The average size of most animals is not that large, when you begin to evaluate juveniles. Many calculations have been made based upon these parameters, and the conclusion is that there was more than enough room/space!



-

Actually, the reason that reptiles were smaller was the fact that an Oxygen rich environment created a habitat that allowed them to grow to enormous proportions, and of course, even you are missing that the bible's specifications for the Arc are completely ridiculous! The proposed size of the Arc is so large that it would buckle under its own weight, not to mention that the Bible also specifies which species Noah was told to take, and it really didn't say a whole lot about reptiles, it merely told him to take animals that were fit and unfit for sacrifice. Maybe you should know your own scriptures before you try to argue for that side? And you might also want to brush up on your science. Not to mention that the only time there was a global deluge was about 450 million years ago..

[Blü]

.
iama

How do you define TRUTH?

As you know, because I’ve told you several times before (http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=821&discussionID=471808), the dictionary allows two meanings for ‘truth’ and (to quote from that link) -


When science uses the word 'truth' (and when I do) we mean what the Shorter Oxford phrases as Conformity with fact; accuracy; correctness of statement and also Something that is true; true statement or account; that which is true.

When religion uses the word 'truth' it means what the Shorter Oxford phrases as true religious belief or doctrine; orthodoxy and also in religious use, spiritual reality as the subject of revelation or object of faith.


They’re very different, but you show by your conduct that you continually find it convenient to pretend that your personal religious conviction is somehow in conformity with reality.


The standard by which we are being judged, is not my standard - certainly not!

It’s not my standard either - a supernatural being who orders genocides, massacres, mass rapes, requires and accepts human sacrifice, destroys the living of the faithful for a bet, delivers his own followers into slavery, sits on his hands through the Holocaust and actively promotes religious intolerance. On the evidence of your own stories, your god isn’t just a nasty piece of work, he’s a psychopath.


He NEVER changes.

Oh yes he does, as a few specific examples readily show. By the time of the Captivity he'd begun dealing with his earlier jealousy of other supernatural beings by claiming they didn’t exist. By the time of Paul, his enthusiasm for collecting certain foreskins petered out. By the end of the 19th cent he was selling off his slaves. By the end of the 1960s he’d filed for divorce. By the year 2005 he was experimenting with gay bishops. And so on.


I'm doing little more than quote your own book. You should glance at it one day.

[thesparky]

"Your reliance upon "peer reviewed" journals presenting fairly, is evidence of your presuppositions, etc., blinding you to what is really taking place! Do you approve of what happened to this scientist? I surely hope not!

The speculation's watchdogs "got her!" Your unbiased science arena has gone to the dogs."

The problem is that when you provide links which show the conspiracy etc, you only reference creationist sites. Any unbiased observer will recognise these sites as propaganda for the cause. Like any lobby group that wants to promote its own agenda, creationism is not interested in balanced reporting. The arguments would be much better in your own words. I read that Mexico thing three times before I could discern the point behind all the hyperbole and rhetoric and it really wasn't worth it.

[thesparky]

iama says:

"Did you know that the Bible does not use your speculation's "species" term? The biblical term is <I>bara</I> - "kind.""

I know I shouldn't ask but is this correct? I couldn't find it mentioned in the keyword search. Isn't bara a made up word that creationists use to imbue the word "kind" with their own meaning and as such goes beyond what the bible actually says?

If "bara" is a legitimate way of looking at the variety of life on earth, you ought to able to provide the evidence that shows which were the original ark kinds and some kind of survey which attempts to show the relationships of modern and extinct animals to original kinds.

[thesparky]

Iama says:

"Now, IF you call "origins" Science, and you agree that "origins" should be covered in the Science classroom, then, ALL ORIGINS - all representative-of-the-community-origins paradigms - should be fairly represented in the classroom. Then, the critical aspect of Science education and practice, should prevail as the "origin"-parameters are critiqued by the students. There will always be students in every classroom who will be knowledgeable enough, or represent homes which would be able to supply specifics re: their origins presuppositions."

The point is that your version of god is a presupposition. If you want to supply evidence for god then it should be unvarnished by the inclusion of mythical tales and conjecture about the meaning of scripture. It really is the same old argument over and over again. Religion does not belong in a science class and when I went to school, a church school by the way, everyone knew that.

"How do you define TRUTH?

How wide a path would you allow yourself, if the center of the path represented pure-truth?"

I would refer you to Blü's answer. I totally agree with the dual meaning of what is true in reality and a higher concept of truth as in spiritual truth. Although an atheist, I recognise that sometimes real truth is too mundane to have meaning for us and that "higher" truth sometimes has a better emotional resonance. I firmly believe that we need to recognise the difference and also that you should consider it.

[iamachildofhis]

.

iama, ... So just point me to the one definitive piece of evidence on which you rely and I promise to consider it.

From the original websites which I referenced, earlier, I found this website.



Try this one:

http://www.ldolphin.org/bibleinterp.html




-

[colossians3_12]

From the original websites which I referenced, earlier, I found this website.

Try this one:

http://www.ldolphin.org/bibleinterp.html

-
Oh, come on . . . I quit after I saw the word "presuppositions" for about the fifteen time. What is the point of this drivel supposed to be?

In your own words, please. What do you imagine we're going to find compelling here? Other than the fact that this guy calls Hugh Ross a fake?

Leigh

[Blü]

.
iama

From the original websites which I referenced, earlier, I found this website.

Try this one:

http://www.ldolphin.org/bibleinterp.html


No, don't refer me to the Library of Congress. Anyone can hide in there.

Point me to the piece of evidence on which you rely.

That's to say, in all those words in that link, what's the point that makes your point?

[ReasonOverFaith]

BTW, Iama, did you know that there are about 1.5 million species and that estimates commonly indicate there are about twice that many species that exist on our planet? Doesn't leave much room on an large wooden boat does it? Never mind all those species that require unique habits and diets to live. Just like a wooden boat of 500 feet, the whole notion sinks under its own weight.

Did you know that the Bible does not use your speculation's "species" term? The biblical term is <I>bara</I> - "kind."

Are you aware of the fact that the fossil evidence tells us that many plant, animal and human fossils indicate that life-forms were much larger than present day representatives? Reptiles don't stop growing throughout their life-times. So small representatives of reptiles were on the ark. Also other animals which boarded the ark could also have been juveniles. If you have only a male and a female of each "kind" on the ark, you can eliminate the vast majority or your above mentioned "species." The average size of most animals is not that large, when you begin to evaluate juveniles. Many calculations have been made based upon these parameters, and the conclusion is that there was more than enough room/space!
-

So, you are proposing that the hundreds of thousands of different species of beetles (for instance) didn’t need to be represented on the ark, since they are all of “like kind?” If that is not an accurate assessment of this line of thought, please correct me.

[Blü]

.
Reason

Creationists have no answer to real questions about the Flood, like -

Why do the geological records of every continent show no sign of a global flood?

Why don't the genes of all species show a simultaneous genetic bottleneck dated to 2,348 BCE (or whenever)?

Why don't the genes of humans converge on only and exactly five individual ancestors of the same date?

How did the lemurs get back to Madagascar after the flood? The capybaras and armadillos to South America? The macropods and monotremes to Australia and New Guinea? Why (as their fossils show) did they only go back to where they'd come from? (The answer can't be food - a year's submersion will kill all the vegetation.)

Where did the extra 1.13 billion cubic miles of water necessary to submerge Mt Everest come from, and where did it go afterwards?

Nor do they have an answer to how the arthropoda - at least a million species - (and their respective food and environmental requirements) were identified, collected and set up in the Ark; nor how they too got home afterwards.

Nor how the salt water fish, molluscs &c survived a year's immersion in fresh water.

Nor how a wooden boat 500 x 83 x 50 feet in size could be prevented from flexing and thus leaking disastrously.

It's nonsense piled on nonsense.

[DoorNumber3]

.
Reason

Creationists have no answer to real questions about the Flood, like -

Why do the geological records of every continent show no sign of a global flood?

Why don't the genes of all species show a simultaneous genetic bottleneck dated to 2,348 BCE (or whenever)?

Why don't the genes of humans converge on only and exactly five individual ancestors of the same date?

How did the lemurs get back to Madagascar after the flood? The capybaras and armadillos to South America? The macropods and monotremes to Australia and New Guinea? Why (as their fossils show) did they only go back to where they'd come from? (The answer can't be food - a year's submersion will kill all the vegetation.)

Where did the extra 1.13 billion cubic miles of water necessary to submerge Mt Everest come from, and where did it go afterwards?

Nor do they have an answer to how the arthropoda - at least a million species - (and their respective food and environmental requirements) were identified, collected and set up in the Ark; nor how they too got home afterwards.

Nor how the salt water fish, molluscs &c survived a year's immersion in fresh water.

Nor how a wooden boat 500 x 83 x 50 feet in size could be prevented from flexing and thus leaking disastrously.

It's nonsense piled on nonsense.


I used to believe in a literal six day creation, Adam and Eve and Noah’s flood were real, kind of Christianity. I can tell you what I would have said then. My answer would have been “God did it.” I didn’t know how, I didn’t know why, but I knew he did it. “Scientific” proof of things like global floods would not have been necessary. I had all the proof I needed - it was in the Bible.

(I do not still think that way)

[iamachildofhis]

.


iama: From the original websites which I referenced, earlier, I found this website.

Try this one:

http://www.ldolphin.org/bibleinterp.html


No, don't refer me to the Library of Congress. Anyone can hide in there.

Point me to the piece of evidence on which you rely.

That's to say, in all those words in that link, what's the point that makes your point?



Now you are telling me that you are unwilling to read!

I think that you really don't know what you are asking for.




Go and read the article from a post-Creation and post-Flood and post-Ice Age point of view.!

Set your speculation point of view aside for the interim, while you read.



-

[LifeWalker]

What about Jack and The Bean Stalk where does he come into play?

[Ridcully]

Now you are telling me that you are unwilling to read!

I think that you really don't know what you are asking for.

Go and read the article from a post-Creation and post-Flood and post-Ice Age point of view.!

Set your speculation point of view aside for the interim, while you read.

-

I skimmed your link Iama. The article contains a number of statements such as "The naturalist arrives with his bag filled with theories that, while yet utterly unproven, somehow have gained factual status. " Yet, there is nothing in the article that I found that even addresses a single issue from a scientific or empirical point of view. Instead we are given these sort of statements: "While meditating at Maranatha Baptist Bible College about the problem of 'an ice age' within Biblical times, a thought struck me." Simply making up things as you go along won't even pass the smile test.

[iamachildofhis]

iama says:

"Did you know that the Bible does not use your speculation's "species" term? The biblical term is <I>bara</I> - "kind.""

I know I shouldn't ask but is this correct? I couldn't find it mentioned in the keyword search. Isn't bara a made up word that creationists use to imbue the word "kind" with their own meaning and as such goes beyond what the bible actually says?




Actually, it is a good thing that you did ask your question!


As you can see from the following very interesting article about a brown-white polar bear, I don't have my head on straight!

"The fact that several species of bear can readily interbreed indicates that they are all of the same original created kind. The field of study involving identifying the original kinds is known as baraminology, based on the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind)."

The Pizzly: a polar bear / grizzly bear hybrid explained by the Bible

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4306/



The following is from the Concordance of the Blue Letter Bible site:

"kind"

1) kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals)

Goups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved—not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".


http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H04327&Version=kjv



If "bara" is a legitimate way of looking at the variety of life on earth, you ought to able to provide the evidence that shows which were the original ark kinds and some kind of survey which attempts to show the relationships of modern and extinct animals to original kinds.

I need to, from now on, use "baramin"/"created kind" when referring to the originally created life-forms.

You make a good point. The article on the polar bear does look at the brown-white polar bear in those terms.

This site references several other interesting articles:

Bears Across the World

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/716


Ligers and wholphins? What next?

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/271



-

[iamachildofhis]

Iama says: "Now, IF you call "origins" Science, and you agree that "origins" should be covered in the Science classroom, then, ALL ORIGINS - all representative-of-the-community-origins paradigms - should be fairly represented in the classroom. Then, the critical aspect of Science education and practice, should prevail as the "origin"-parameters are critiqued by the students. There will always be students in every classroom who will be knowledgeable enough, or represent homes which would be able to supply specifics re: their origins presuppositions."

The point is that your version of god is a presupposition. If you want to supply evidence for god then it should be unvarnished by the inclusion of mythical tales and conjecture about the meaning of scripture. It really is the same old argument over and over again. Religion does not belong in a science class and when I went to school, a church school by the way, everyone knew that.

1. We are speaking of an alternative origins of life belief-system.

2. There are two basic origins of life belief-systems:

- the speculation belief-system re: origin of life, which has been TAUGHT freely for years in public education classrooms

- the creation belief-system re: origin of life, which has been EXCLUDED rigorously for years from the public education classrooms.

3. The speculation is non-evidenced.

4. The creation is ID-evidenced

5. The speculation is highly atheistic, agnostic, liberal, etc., supported.

6. The creation is highly biblical, theistic, conservative, etc., supported.

7. The ACTUAL SCIENCE related human activities conducted worldwide daily, is largely neutral with respect to origin of life presuppositions - either speculation or creation.

8. Your chosen speculation is your presuppositioned belief-system, whether you accept that fact or not.

9. So, your speculation, non-evidenced, and a belief-system regarding the non-science-origin-of-life-topic, should NOT BE the only origins of life paradigm in the public education classrooms.

10. The creation paradigm is NOT non-evidenced as it evidences Intelligent Design in all of its entities.

11. The point is that it is not a matter of anyone's version of the Creator-God. Creation is more evidenced and more supported by the public education's representative parents, and is being excluded from the public by education's atheistic, agnostic, liberal, etc., education-hierarchies - the humanists.





"How do you define TRUTH?

How wide a path would you allow yourself, if the center of the path represented pure-truth?"

I would refer you to Blü's answer. I totally agree with the dual meaning of what is true in reality and a higher concept of truth as in spiritual truth. Although an atheist, I recognise that sometimes real truth is too mundane to have meaning for us and that "higher" truth sometimes has a better emotional resonance. I firmly believe that we need to recognise the difference and also that you should consider it.

That is an humanistic dodge!


How can you be an atheist and recognize "a higher concept of truth as in spiritual truth?"

Our Creator-God is the Source of all that is Truth, for BOTH meanings presented by Blu.


The evil lie is in control of our public education systems.



-

[thesparky]

Iama. You are talking about species that are closely related. If you are suggesting that all species within kinds can interbreed then you are out of luck because the further away the relationship, the less likely it can happen - evolution takes them ever further apart. If you aren't suggesting that, then what was your point? Your article says that a polar bear has lost the information for brown fur yet how do they know that from one example? More likely that they could very well change back to brown if future conditions favour it. Arctic foxes change seasonally from brown to white, Arctic hares do the same. Do they lose the information every year and then find it again?

The polar bear is a pioneer species. Like all such species that inhabit hostile climates, they are beautifully adapted for their environment and contain many special feature that allow them to do so, including hollow fur and thick blubber. There is a species of desert goat that never urinates and camels are desert experts, even to the point of having specially adapted nostrils that don't allow moisture to escape through breathing. Some desert dwelling creatures obtain all the water they need from condensation.

You want to say these creatures have lost information in the process of adaptation? That would be ridiculous. There is a species of crab that lives in the desert. How does a sea dwelling crab end up with lungs living in a desert through a loss of information? How does a creature known for flight gain the ability to live in the sea with adaptations not found in any other bird, through a loss of information? Why don't you attempt to show how that happens?

And when I talked about a survey of kinds, I meant all species, not just the few trotted out by creation sites. Too difficult? I have a book in front of me called The Variety of Life by Colin Tudge. It describes itself as "a survey and a celebration of all the creatures that have ever lived". That's what you call addressing the issue - people who are actually interested WAnt to do it. Creationists talk of cat kind, dog kind and then pretty much run out of steam. They have no interest in the animal kingdom beyond trying to fit them all onto the ark.

[MMarcoe]

"The fact that several species of bear can readily interbreed indicates that they are all of the same original created kind...."-

So if I understand this, the boundaries between kinds are determined by whether or not a male from one grouping can successfully mate with a female from another. This sounds reasonable on some level, but I don't see how it negates macroevolution. This sounds more like after-the-fact classification, or perhaps an attempt to put a Genesis touch on existing species-genus-family taxonomy.



Goups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. -

But what are the parameters of ancestral gene pools? We evolutionists claim that people, chimps, and lemurs have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. In fact, given that people and mice share over three-fourths of their DNA, it is reasonable to say that you and Mickey Mouse are of the same kind.

[SonnyC]

If any of you have read some of my other posts, you'll know that I am a pure creationist if there is such a definition of one.

However, I must point out that to date, no creationist who opts to use an evidentialist model has been able to answer this problem:

On the Ark, creationists have speculated (John Woodmorappe was the last one I read to do this,) there could possibly be upwards of 25,000 species (or kinds, whatever) on the Ark. Today, estimates of extant species of fauna and flora approach some 30 million. In only 5000 years (let's even double that to 10,000), how does one make up the difference without invoking massive program of macroevolution?

Now, I believe in a literal Deluge event. I also believe in a literal Genesis account. But I also believe that the evidentialist creation models are in error in their approach.

That's pretty much all I want to say on this subject.

[redwood_myst]

Sonny C,

It would seem like the simplest, most honest and probably best reasoning a literal Genesis creationist could ever offer is: "i believe in the Bible no matter what the evidence says."

It won't convince any one else (but then neither does the kind of apologetics that Iam practices) but it has the virtue of being 100% honest.

RM

[thesparky]

iama says:

"How can you be an atheist and recognize "a higher concept of truth as in spiritual truth?""

This is quite difficult to explain but I'll try. Essentially we have two ways of looking at the world. One is practical and rational. We are simply looking at the way things are and deciphering how the world works. When we know how things work, we gain that knowledge and use it to our advantage.

But we are emotional creatures. If I flip a coin and get heads nine times in a row, It gets harder to see this as mere chance. If my team wins when I am wearing my lucky hat, then I always wear my lucky hat to games. I do this in full knowledge that in reality my hat bears no part in the outcome of games. If I hear bad news then it is sometimes hard to sink in. How can it be possible that a person no longer exists when they are still in my heart and in my head? They are still there yet not there. Our whole lives we have to deal with emotions where accepting the facts is difficult.

We also write history as myth. It isn't that it doesn't contain a factual basis, merely that they are written so as to make them more meaningful to their intended recipients. Not because they are stupid either, but that there is deeper understanding to be gained by telling and receiving the story in a particular way.

I feel this is the real argument between us. Everyday truth and spiritual truth are different. People don't work properly without both sorts.

Your evil lie jibe is an emotional response and I bet you felt the truth of it as you wrote. You would find it harder to prove in actuality.

[Blü]

.
iama

Now you are telling me that you are unwilling to read!

No, I'm telling you I'm not prepared to do YOUR reading for you.

I get very tired of Creationists pointing to the Library of Congress and saying, Just read that - all the evidence that supernatural beings exist is in there! For example, Mario tried that trick just last month when he didn't have any evidence to make a satisfactory case for an historical Jesus.

So enough ducking and evading and nonsense. Cut to the chase. Stop protesting that I've asked you to specify what it is you're citing all those words for - INSTEAD point to the precise words you rely on.

Ridcully got in ahead of the point I was expecting - he observes that you object because nothing in those links actually does what you say it does. But I'll still give you the benefit of the doubt and see if you can choose (say) the not more than 200 word quote from those links that makes your case.

Which is, that supernatural beings exist in reality and not just in imagination.

[Ridcully]

Ridcully got in ahead of the point I was expecting - he observes that you object because nothing in those links actually does what you say it does. But I'll still give you the benefit of the doubt and see if you can choose (say) the not more than 200 word quote from those links that makes your case.

Which is, that supernatural beings exist in reality and not just in imagination.

Oops...I didn't intend to mess up the sequence of your argument Blu. Anyway, we already know that the probablility of Iama providing the information you requested is ... quite low.

[brightmoon]

hey DN3 wassup

[brightmoon]

Now, I believe in a literal Deluge event. I also believe in a literal Genesis account. But I also believe that the evidentialist creation models are in error in their approach.

That's pretty much all I want to say on this subject.

youve made an assertion ...
pretty much like a little kid saying "CUZ!!!"

now, why do you think that we will accept that simple assertion of yours as a real answer

if you dont HAVE an answer, why dont you simply just say so