Login

Join for Free!
118326 members


Creationism

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby b_d_41501 » Thu Aug 25, 2005 6:13 pm

I feel exactly the same way. It is evident by my post that I believe that evolutionary tools were implemented by a superior being. Since i've been studying the complex ion channels and chemical processes of cell biology it is very hard to believe that things such as this just "happened by themselves" so to speak. Until one theory or the other has been proven (which probably will never happen, IMO) they both should be taught in all introductory science courses and evolutionary specific science courses. As long as the theories are stated as Mr.Mystery said, "Creationism states" or "Darwinism/Evolutionary theories state" then everything will be fine. This allows even more freedom for the person to choose which theory they support. To say that only evolutionary ideas should be taught is no different than a Creationism supporter saying that only Creationism should be taught. We have to allow for people to choose their own belief system, and this is the only logical and ethical way to do so in a public sense.
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes take two more. Help is on the way."
----- Voice from the Medicine Cabinet
User avatar
b_d_41501
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:55 pm
Location: Kentucky

Postby canalon » Thu Aug 25, 2005 6:25 pm

Aaargh I promised myself not to intervene on this topic, but I can't help, I have to answer... :(

The problem with teaching Evolutionnary theory and creationnismon the same ground is that one a scientific theory (evolution) and the other one is a belief (creation). You cannot teach both of those on the same ground! Evolution is backed by facts and is submitted to permanent scientific evaluation, the other escapes this, and thus should not be taught on the same ground. Except in history of science/ideas those 2 things do not belong to the same books.

Read Karl Popper!

Patrick
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby b_d_41501 » Thu Aug 25, 2005 6:40 pm

This is true, Canalon. However, IMO the United States (and other parts of the world) is up in a huge controversy over specifically these two topics. Therefore, Creationism should at least be mentioned as an optional theory when discussing the beginnings of life and of the universe. When this is done, opinions can be formed and no one is forced into one particular way of thinking, they can think for themselves. It is pointless to preach Creationism once you get past the beginnings of life and of the universe, because there is no relevance in other sub-branches of science (once again, IMO). It is also pointless to preach that evolution is the ONLY possibility when there is no sound evidence that it occured. Before everyone freaks out about that statement, it is true that there is no sound evidence because this is why it is still called evolutionary theory, because it is just that, a theory. Until it is called "The Law of Evolution" no individual has the right to say there is only one way or another that it occurred.
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes take two more. Help is on the way."
----- Voice from the Medicine Cabinet
User avatar
b_d_41501
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:55 pm
Location: Kentucky


Postby MrMistery » Thu Aug 25, 2005 6:43 pm

I have read Karl Popper. I actualy play the debate style he founded, so to speak. You have a point that evolution is backed up by intense scientific studies, while creationism is not. But, if you ask creationists they will tell you that all the scientific proof in favour of evolution is inconclusive or false. I am not saying evolution is not true. All i am saying is that people need to know both sides. Maybe a better choise would be to study creationism at religion classes and evolution at biology classes nd then have some kind of debate each year. it is a discussion that never leads to anything since one part is never going to be able to convince the other but it might be good for argumentative qualities of the students. :D :D
There is a strange thing about creationism. Some great geneticians and biochemists suggest that it is true due to different theories. They offer creationism as their only viable alternative to evolution, which they think is wrong. What they do not understand is that evolution is not a math problem that can be solved by a single answer, a single piece of proof, it is a very wide picture that is made out of a lot of small pieces. But we are getting off-topic....
Fun Fact of the Day: My religion teacher is a convinced evolutionist! :D
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter
User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)

Postby b_d_41501 » Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:05 pm

Sounds like me kinda, a believer in Creationism but that Evolution is simply the tool used by a superior being to carry out the creation. lol. I love debating, some even call me the "Master Debater". lol
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes take two more. Help is on the way."
----- Voice from the Medicine Cabinet
User avatar
b_d_41501
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:55 pm
Location: Kentucky

Postby canalon » Thu Aug 25, 2005 8:15 pm

B_d_ you shouldn't misunderstand the word theory! Everything in science that is not factual is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Facts are just the apple falling on Newton's head, the explanation is no less theory than the evolution. Theory in sciences are just a way to refer to the way results can be predicted.
The HUGE difference between evolution and creation is that you can test the theory of evolution you cannot test the creation. Hence one is a scientific theory, the other is a belief. They do not belong to the same group of knoledge. One is taught in science, the other can be taught in religion philosophy or whatever you want, but not in a science classroom. And if you start with creation, yoou better give also every form it can take, not only the christian one, and you may also want to give equal time to all the other theory, including the flying spaghetti monster http://www.venganza.org/ :)

Patrick
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby b_d_41501 » Thu Aug 25, 2005 8:59 pm

B_d_ you shouldn't misunderstand the word theory! Everything in science that is not factual is a theory.
Hmmm...... the definition from our very own site states
"In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws. "
Like I stated, it is the Theory of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution, thus it is not as certain as it possibly can be. This can't be denied. Let me set one thing straight from the beginning here, evolution can be tested. Things evolve, or adapt, to their environments to survive. However, the question at hand deals with the fact that all animals on Earth evolved from one "thing" in the ancestral past. Can you test this?
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes take two more. Help is on the way."
----- Voice from the Medicine Cabinet
User avatar
b_d_41501
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:55 pm
Location: Kentucky

Postby canalon » Thu Aug 25, 2005 9:09 pm

b_d_41501 wrote:Let me set one thing straight from the beginning here, evolution can be tested. Things evolve, or adapt, to their environments to survive. However, the question at hand deals with the fact that all animals on Earth evolved from one "thing" in the ancestral past. Can you test this?


Of course the historical part of the evolution cannot be tested again, and if we could start again from the very beginning, it will probably lead to something completely different. But:
- We can see and measure and test evolution as it happens. We can discuss the differnt mechanisms to generate mutations and adaptations. Witness the randomness of the process as it goes
- From those mechanisms we can infer what kind of traces evolution would have left, and find them in beings living these days.

Therefore we can conclude with a reasonnable amount of certainty that the mechanismes we see now were also acting before. And no need of intelligent design (by the way many of the design of life is far from intelligent...), creators and untestable hypotheses in the theory.

Patrick
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby b_d_41501 » Thu Aug 25, 2005 9:19 pm

Therefore we can conclude with a reasonnable amount of certainty that the mechanismes we see now were also acting before. And no need of intelligent design (by the way many of the design of life is far from intelligent...), creators and untestable hypotheses in the theory.


Exactly! You just said what I was trying to state. It is not absolutely, without a doubt certain, thus this is why it is still a theory. I am not arguing that evolution does not occur, I support it myself. However, IMO I do not believe that the entire universe started from nothing (IMO!!)I would hesitate to say that some instances of the processes of living things is not intelligent. Just a small portion of what we know about the processes of living things is overwhelming (e.g., metabolic processes, etc.) to think that it fell into place randomly and in such an orderly fashion. All that i'm saying is that people should have the right to choose, and before they can choose between two beliefs, they have to have been taught these beliefs. I am enjoying this discussion, keep it going!! lol :D
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes take two more. Help is on the way."
----- Voice from the Medicine Cabinet
User avatar
b_d_41501
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:55 pm
Location: Kentucky

Postby canalon » Thu Aug 25, 2005 9:33 pm

Of course, in science there is nothing as a proven thing. There is only not yet disproved theory! There is an absolute impossibility for the postive proof, as I said read Popper.

One more thing, about beginnings: the theory of evolution do not say anything about life started, it just says how once it started, randomness would lead to diversity and evolution. The theory is also valid for any life form anywhere in the universe.

But what it says it that there is no design, no goal in evolution, it is just a perpetual tinkering with what there is now to survive a little more, a little longer. And there is no need to believe in evolution, as you have to believe in creation, we have facts and a conceptual frame that gives a simple and elegant explanation of how they could have evolved from very simple life forms. In fact P. Sonogo and some others made quite an argument, and a very convincing one IMO, on how biology has not completely moved toward evolution and how metabolic processes and regulation for example could be better explained through randon evolutionnary models rather than the teleological one that are the dominant paradigm in science.

Patrick
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

....

Postby ccljboy » Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:25 pm

ok im not too keyed up on the whole darwin thing,
heres some stuff they havnt been tellin you in school(you actually have to read darwins later work(like post origin of species stuff)

A: he retracted ALOT of his theories
B: 90% of evolutions"evidence has been hoaxes like the first 4 homoerectus skeletons lol they were discredited years ago but they r still in txtbooks
C: darwin focused on MICRO EVOLUTION not macro, if u dont know the difference you have no right to an opinion untill you go look it up in a dictionary
ccljboy
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:32 pm

Postby b_d_41501 » Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:43 pm

ok im not too keyed up on the whole darwin thing,
heres some stuff they havnt been tellin you in school(you actually have to read darwins later work(like post origin of species stuff)

A: he retracted ALOT of his theories
B: 90% of evolutions"evidence has been hoaxes like the first 4 homoerectus skeletons lol they were discredited years ago but they r still in txtbooks
C: darwin focused on MICRO EVOLUTION not macro, if u dont know the difference you have no right to an opinion untill you go look it up in a dictionary


You definitely aren't keyed up on the "whole Darwin thing", are you?

A: Could you give me a list of these books? I have heard plenty of myths but have seen no factual information to back this up.

B: The most notable evolutionary hoax I can think of is Piltdown Man, i'm sure there have been more but 90%?! I think not. There are more than 10% found in bacterial micro-evolutionary changes that have been proven. Get your facts straight.

C: Moreover, something you perhaps should have looked up before you wrote your opinion, Darwin died April 19, 1882. The terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" were coined not until 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation Here's the link if you want proof of this. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
Therefore Darwin was focusing on natural selection (he never used the word "evolution") since this term wasn't even coined until 45 years after his death.

I'm not trying to prove or disprove Creationism or Darwinism in my argument, I'm simply saying people deserve the right to choose how to integrate them into their opinions on how life started.
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes take two more. Help is on the way."
----- Voice from the Medicine Cabinet
User avatar
b_d_41501
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:55 pm
Location: Kentucky

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest