Creationist threatens academic science standards group with words of Jesus

by Gopher 129 Replies latest social current

• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  This has been an interesting discussion.

  I like your point about comparing macro-evolution with flatearthism: one has been directly observed and the other is inferred by evidence. Let's use another example:

  Plate Tectonics. The growth of mountains and macro-movements of continents have not been directly observed, though their tiny movements have been. The logical conclusion is that these tiny movements over time create large macro changes. We no longer hold the belief that the continents and mountains were put in their place by a deity as we see them today. We know that the earth looked much different millions of years ago. We no longer teach old theories that do not have evidence (including a global flood) to our school children. The other theories were either not scientific, or turned out to be wrong.

  The same is true with evolution. We all accept micro-evolution. There is no known limiting phenomenon that would 'cap' these micro-changes over time. Logically this means that over great spans of time these micro changes add up to macro changes. The inference is not unjustified and the logic is strong.

  Again, creation as an option has had it's day in the science class. That theory lost out - it did not fit observed facts as well as evolutionary theory. That is why there is no reason to discuss creation or intelligent design in a science class room. It would be appropriate, however, to disucuss such subjects in comparative religion, philosophy, and mythology classes.

  For example, science teachers no longer discuss Lamarkism as an evolutionary theory - it had it's day and it has been shown to be incorrect. Old, tired, incorrect theories should not be taught in science class as 'valid options'. If a testable theory of intelligent design could be developed and compelling evidence for intelligent design were found, then we should expect to see such subjects discussed in science classrooms.

  rem
• 

  hooberus

  The same is true with evolution. We all accept micro-evolution. There is no known limiting phenomenon that would 'cap' these micro-changes over time. Logically this means that over great spans of time these micro changes add up to macro changes. The inference is not unjustified and the logic is strong.

  "micro-evolution" primarily involves change by the loss of genetic information (or the recombination of existing genetic information) whereas macro-evolution involves the creation of new useful genetic information. Thus, it is difficlut to say that the one is the other extrapolated over time.

  Even if one could provide an example of a true information gaining mutation, this would still be a far cry from extrapolating that all of the massive genetic information that we see in the genome today actually came about by this process. One would not only have to show that true information gaining mutations are possible, but one would also have to show that that they happen frequently enough and are preserved by selection frequently enough to account for the genetic information content of the genome.
• 

  Eric

  hooberus,

  My "mars face" and "Mt Rushmore" examples are an example of how to consider the origins of an object from studying the object itself, and not to a priori exclude creation options before looking at the data.

  I have clearly missed your point.

  An examination of the "Mars Face" data clearly indicates a completely natural formation.

  An examination of Mt. Rushmore clearly indicates human intervention and creativity, complete with historical documentation.

  For clarification, do you expect that a Science class should teach anything other than these facts?

  Eric

  p.s. I would not object to a Science program that debunks nonsense by introducing the "Mars Face" as a possibly created object then slams that idea to bits with facts. Not at all.

  I think it would get our youth interested in the exciting aspects of good research.

  Is this what you have in mind for the introduction of the creation option in a science classroom?

  Slamdunk de-bunk 101.

  I love it.
• 

  hooberus

  Eric, I think that students should be exposed to the basic options for the origins of biological phenomena that we see today. These options are:

  1. evolution

  2. creation by a creator

  3. some combination of the above two.

  Students could look at the data from the facts of science, and then come to their own conclusions about origns. Evidence both for and against these options can be digested by students.
• 

  larc

  I will preface my remarks by saying that I did not read this entire thread. Usually I do, but I pretty well know the points of view. I would just like to say that Creationism is not a theory. It is simply a statement - God did it. Scientists are not interested in whether God did it or not, because it can not be proven one way or the other. Scientists are interested in HOW it was done, and that is what evolution is all about.
• 

  Eric

  hooberus,

  OK, maybe now we can get down to the bones of this.

  What textbook or book do you think the creator option should be taught from?

  Are some better than others? If so, why?

  Eric
• 

  rem

  "micro-evolution" primarily involves change by the loss of genetic information (or the recombination of existing genetic information) whereas macro-evolution involves the creation of new useful genetic information. Thus, it is difficlut to say that the one is the other extrapolated over time.

  Simply not true. Point mutations along with recombination and duplication add genetic information all of the time. The process is not altogether lossy. The (manufactured) difference between micro and macro evolution is quantitative - not qualitative. All of this information is freely available on talkorigins.net.

  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html

  http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr01.html (near the end)

  rem
• 

  hooberus

  Perhaps a new textbook could be written for public schools which gives options such as:

  "All life on earth is dependant on DNA for replication. This is interpreted by some scientists as strong evidence that all life decended from a common ancestor, other scientsts believe that this is evidence for a common creator of all life on earth. In this chapter we will explore what DNA is and its function in the cell. We will then look at the evidence that the shared DNA indicates that all life came from a common ancestor, will will also look at proposed evidence against this. We will then look at evidence that all life is the product of a common creator, we will then look at the proposed evidence against this. We will then examine the evidence for a third alternative, that is a combination of the above two."
• 

  hooberus

  rem, moving existing information around in the genome through recombination, duplication, etc. is not the same as the creation of new information.
  

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp

  "Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc. do not help ? they represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information?these create nothing new. Macroevolution needs new genes (for making feathers on reptiles, for example)."

  Evolutionists are basically left with with various mutations acting on already existing genetic infromation (some of this existing information could be stored repetatively in things such as duplications) in order to create new information.

  rem, moving existing information around in the genome through recombination, duplication, etc. is not the same as the creation of new information.

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp

  "Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc. do not help ? they represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information?these create nothing new. Macroevolution needs new genes (for making feathers on reptiles, for example)."

  Evolutionists are basically left with with various mutations acting on already existing genetic infromation (some of this existing information could be stored repetatively in things such as duplications) in order to create new information.

  (I just duplicated my previous words. I thus increased the amount of words on this thread, but I did not increase the amount of new information though I did increase the amount of material for mutations to potentially act upon.)
• 

  hooberus

  earlier I said:
  

  "micro-evolution" primarily involves change by the loss of genetic information (or the recombination of existing genetic information) whereas macro-evolution involves the creation of new useful genetic information. Thus, it is difficlut to say that the one is the other extrapolated over time."

  I think that most evolutionists would agree that micro-evolution (as observed) does indeed primarily involve change by the loss of genetic information (by sorting for example) or the recombination of existing genes, though they (neo-darwinists) believe that in the unobserved past the genetic information in the genome was built up through some sort of slow gain of information.

  Keep in mind that even if one can provide examples of true information gaining mutations, this would still be a far cry from extrapolating that all of the massive genetic information that we see in the genome today actually came about by this process. One would not only have to show that true information gaining mutations are possible, but one would also have to show that that they happen frequently enough and are preserved by selection frequently enough to account for the genetic information content of the genome. These issues have caused the neo-darwinean theory of mutation and slection to come under fire even from evolutionists.