Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[DanaC]

......wouldnt put it past some folks
I have heard some very strange attempts to rationalise scientific theories of evolution with the creation myth as found in Genesis...

[Catwoman]

Takes all sorts... leave 'em to their fantasies I say, ignorance is bliss - and they wouldn't understand the truth if it hit them in the face anyway.

[Yelof]

leave 'em to their fantasies I say, ignorance is bliss

On a personal level I agree, I hate getting into arguments about such things as they get no where, however DanaC brought up the issue of what to teach in schools.

Not many creationists will believe this but good science is without an agenda, it is amoral, it is process. Scientific progress should be made with out supposition to the result, many advancements have been made where the originator of the hypothesis himself disagreed or disliked the conclusion, Darwin himself sat on evolution for 14 years before publishing because he was very uncomfortable about his own conclusions. As such evolution fits soundly in the mainstream of scientic process, it is required teaching for anyone who wishes to study biology, it has many uses outside biology, e.g computional science. Learning of the process of evolution is important to understand our modern world and should be required of all high school level students.

Creationist science starts with a conclusion, hides a religious agenda in scientific language that is attractive to those with little scientific knowledge and should be considered religious instruction. Whether religious instruction should be thought in state funded schools is another matter, I attended a school run by a religious order and as such believe all religion should be kept out of all schools, save the mental indoctrination to after school hours, schools should stick to the facts and to moral codes that all society agrees on.

[DanaC]

The problem comes ( imo) when mythos is taught as fact in schools. As I understand it there are many schools in the western world ( particularly in the US) which teach the two theories as equally valid.

[Catwoman]

While children are undoubtedly highly impressionable and susceptible to religious instruction (the main argument for not teaching some of the more obscure, contraversial religions in schools), it is important also not to underestimate their decision making capabilities and power to filter in and out things and theories they may or may not agree with. My schooling had a religious element that I have subsequently (and indeed at the time) rejected. On this basis I think it is essential children are taught as wide a variety of religions and philosophies as time and cognitive ability allows.


Yelof "save the mental indoctrination to after school hours"

It is a sad thing that it should happen at any hour.

[Troubleshooter]

Creation Science isn't.

It's wrong on two differing levels.

1) it doesn't follow the scientific method,
2) why try to prove something you have faith in? Contradictory, paradoxical.

[Catwoman]

and,

3) it's a load of bollocks.

[Radar]

Creationism is yet another topic that pushes my "asshole button"

I'm so aghast that anyone with in IQ over 80 would buy that fairy tale type explanation for how things became how they are now that I lose a little hope for the human race each time I encounter it. In fact, that's it. I've had enough. Stop the world. I wanna get off!

Here Here!!!

[Pete]

I just think it needs to be made clear in school that evolutionism is an unproven theory. It makes a lot of sense but we need to be open to other ideas.

[elSicomoro]

There is no proof in science. Only support for or against a hypothesis.

Evolution has its issues, but it has a lot more support than creationism.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar from AIG websiteAlthough many prominent evolutionary fossil experts insist that there are no satisfactory fossils of transitional forms between different kinds of creatures, on page 35 of the Skeptics’ book, the author tries to show that there are. In his article about ‘Gaps in the fossil record’, he neither mentions nor shows a single diagram of any fossil. In fact, much of the article is taken up explaining away the very gaps which he elsewhere seems to deny by saying that ‘the fossil record contains literally thousands of transitional forms'.

The problem with claiming that there are "gaps" in the fossil record is that whenever something is found that goes in a gap, two more gaps are created. So, even with more information available, there are more gaps for creationists to complain about. Unless every single historical animal is found and documented, there will always be gaps.

In spite of many words, the author neither mentions nor shows a single diagram of a fossil showing a true transitional structure — part-limb, part-wing; part-scale, part-feather, for example. This, of course, is for the simple reason that there are none.

I haven't read the book that this article is critiquing, so I can't speak to what is or isn't in it, but it's simply not true that there are no transitional forms (as defined here) known. Here's a list.

Superbly engineered for lightweight aerodynamic efficiency, the system of interlocking hooks and barbules means that a quick preen with the bill will cause flattened feathers to snap into fully aerodynamic shape again. But note that every structure or organ must be represented by information (written in a chemical alphabet on the long molecule DNA) at the genetic level. Clearly, the information required to code for the construction of a feather is of a substantially different order from that required for a scale. For scales to have evolved into feathers means that a significant amount of genetic information, or specific chemical complexity, has to exist in the bird's DNA which is not present in that of the reptile. Examine the amazing close-up (below) of the barbules of a feather showing the tiny hooklets and grooves (Magnified 200 times, courtesy of David Menton).

This seems to be primarily picking apart a poorly written section of a sceptic's book. Which is precisely what I'm doing here, but I'm not claiming that what I'm doing is science.

As for the content, it seems to parallel the eye problem, saying that feathers are too different from scales to have suddenly mutated. Of course they are. It didn't happen that way. The feathers slowly evolved, and there are currently tons of different types of feathers, of varying complexity. A kiwi's feathers are much simpler than those described in the article - they have no hook and barb system, and hang loose.

[glatt]

Originally posted by Pete
I just think it needs to be made clear in school that evolutionism is an unproven theory. It makes a lot of sense but we need to be open to other ideas.

How about consisitency? Should they have a disclaimer before teaching each and every theory in science that the theory hasn't been proven? There are just a handful of scientific laws. Everything else taught in science is a theory.

Most science courses that I have taken discuss the scientific process at the beginning of the course, and teach what a theory is. If the students are paying attention at the beginning of the course, they will understand.

[Happy Monkey]

And even the few 'laws' are just theories that have survived so many attacks that it is generally accepted.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by glatt

How about consisitency? Should they have a disclaimer before teaching each and every theory in science that the theory hasn't been proven? There are just a handful of scientific laws. Everything else taught in science is a theory.

Most science courses that I have taken discuss the scientific process at the beginning of the course, and teach what a theory is. If the students are paying attention at the beginning of the course, they will understand.

I don't have a problem with science. I don't claim to be a scientist. What I have a problem with is that, as Pete pointed out here (and I pointed out in the other thread on this topic) Evolutionary theory is still just a theory. Just like Creationism is just a theory. Biology is observable. Astronomy is observable. Geology is observable. That's science. Theories regarding Origins is completely UNPROVABLE. Any origins. Sure, some people have ideas that sound good, but then someone else comes along and shows the problem in that theory.

At no time did I intend any one to be converted to Christianity just because they visited a website. But as Dana correctly stated, I was irritated that it was dismissed out of hand, without really looking at it. It was the closemindedness that I had a problem with.

And Jim, as I've said before, I argue for or against a subject at will, so stop trying to categorize and label me as a "Pagan" or a "Christian". Why is that so important to you?

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
And Jim, as I've said before, I argue for or against a subject at will, so stop trying to categorize and label me as a "Pagan" or a "Christian". Why is that so important to you?

In this case, your religion could suggest bias.