by Gopher 129 Replies latest social current
rem do you still believe that creationists are gulity of these things?:
I just did: Haeckel's drawings. The misconception is that Haeckel's drawings are somehow a fundamental part of todays evolutionary theory. It is not.
By making it appear that Haeckel's drawings are an important part of the modern theory of evolution and discrediting them, Creationists commit the strawman fallacy.
Hooberus,
Yes. Read the entire article you cited.
rem
You have made my point for me yet again. Still you are talking about Haeckel's theory of recapitulation. Haeckel's other work, which includes noticing the similarities between organisms during fetal development, are still considered valid today. The misconception, which you are now employing, is implying that having any of Haeckel's drawings in science text books as evidence of Evolution is fraudulent or in error and makes it look like scientists are relying on shaky evidence to hold up the theory.
Where did I or creationists such as AIG ever say that we are opposed to "any" of Haeckels drawings being used in textbooks? Creationist opposition relates to the fradulent ones.
This misconception (or should I say misrepresentation?) . . .Please show evidence for this accusation
is advanced to cause doubt in students about the foundations of the theory of evolution and make them think there is controversy about it. Again, this is part of the wedge strategy that is employed by Creationists - it is no secret. You yourself know that creationists have tried to put, and some times succeded in putting disclaimers within science text books stating that the theory of Evolution is considered contriversial.
Macro-evolution is considered controversial by many scientists and teachers.
Please don't insult our intelligence by implying that creationists are only interested in accurate science. Creationists have been trying to get their religion taught in science classes and text books for years. The agenda is transparent.
Creationists have been attempting to provide students with a balanced origins education whereby both the evidences for and against evolution and creation are provided to students. Discussing whether an object has its origns in creation or evolution is hardly having "religion" taught in science classes. The words "creation" or "creator" not necessarily "religious" words (though they can have religious implications).
Lets say a science class is dicussing the origin of the "face on Mars"
Our options are:
1.This is a rock formation with a purly naturalistic origin.
2. This is a rock formation that was created by a creator.
3. Some combination of the above (for example it was created by a creator then eroded somewhat by naturalistic processes).
None of the above options are directly "religious" and students should be provided information and interpretation from the facts of science for each of them. Only teaching option #1 to students (and teaching it in a dogmatic way) while excluding the other two options from discussion does not serve to give an orgins education.
Hooberus,
Where did I or creationists such as AIG ever say that we are opposed to "any" of Haeckels drawings being used in textbooks? Creationist opposition relates to the fradulent ones.
Which ones are not fraudulent in your mind? Where Haeckel and his supporters say the drawings are 'simplified', creationists and other detractors of the time claimed them to be fraudulent. The fact that Haeckel's theory of recapitulation is no longer taught in today's schools and Creationists are making a stink about his pictures being in there is evidence enough that Creationists are opposed to "any" of Haeckels drawings.
Is there any evidence that the theory of recapitulation was being promoted in the school texts in question? If not, then my point has been made. If so, then I'll admit that the Creationists have done a good deed in that instance. I may have spoken too soon about wishing Haeckel's pictures were not included, though it's probably better that they are not because of this type of misconception and controversy created.
Please show evidence for this accusation
If the theory of recapitulation is not currently being published in school text books (as current thinking), then the evidence is clear. If it is (and not just the pictures used in a different context) then I was wrong. I doubt I'm wrong.
Macro-evolution is considered controversial by many scientists and teachers.
If by "many" you mean an extremely small minority of scientists then you are correct. Who cares what teachers think... many of them don't have any business teaching science anyway.
Lets say a science class is dicussing the origin of the "face on Mars"
This is a good example.
The fact is that today we know that the 'face' on Mars is a natural formation. How do we know? We have higher resolution pictures of the site in question today than we did years ago - it doesn't even look like a face. Even before these high resolution pictures, we knew that the probability of an intelligent design option was very low due to several reasons I won't go into now.
I'll admit that if we didn't know those things, then it would be entirely reasonable to discuss the intelligent design options. But today, it would be silly to postulate an intelligent designer of the site in question as a serious option in a science classroom. The intelligent design theory has been refuted. Also, in this example, there are no religious overtones because an intelligent designer could very well be a space alien.
Not so with origins of life (which is not Evolution, by the way - it's Abiogenesis). Remember Evolution is dealing the the origins of species and higher taxa after life started. There is no need to postulate some tinkering intelligence guiding things along. That's not science. We don't postulate intelligent beings guiding the orbits of planets around massive stars even though we haven't yet detected the graviton. We don't postulate intelligent beings creating virtual particles in a vaccuum just because it's acausal, quantum mechanically speaking. Science just doesn't work that way.
And discussing an intelligent designer when it comes to origins is religious and is not testable. Anything that is not testable or scientific should stay outside of the science classroom.
Edited to add: Also, it's not as if the Creation model hasn't had it's time in classroom. Creation of some form was taught as fact for the last few centuries (and longer) in many, if not most schools. It has had it's day. The theory of Evolution as formulated by Darwin and improved by his successors has decided that argument. There is no sense bringing it back up again unless there is some extraordinary evidence that can not only cast evolutionary theory in grave doubt but also provide positive, unambiguous evidence of creation. Just as flat earthism has had it's day, so too has creationism.
I'm not sure why Evolution seems to threaten many Christians. Evolution and even Abiogenesis are not inherently atheistic. If there is a god, then that's just the way it (they?) decided to create things. Who really knows if there is a god or not? That's not the question science is trying to answer with the theories of Evolution and Abiogenesis.
rem
Also, in this example, there are no religious overtones because an intelligent designer could very well be a space alien.
I agree that in my "mars face" example there are no direct religious overtones. The use of the words "creation" and "creator" in option #2 and #3 does not mean that "religion" is being taught (unless of course the word "God" or "angels" etc. was used as the creator). When creationists say that they want the evidence and option of creation being taught alongside evolution they are not saying that in public schools that the creator has to be identified as "God" but only as a "creator". The word "creator" does not necessarily imply a "religious" creator. This is true with the mars face exapmle as well as for the human face.
Lets say a science class is dicussing the origin of humans:
Our options are:
1. Humans have with a purly naturalistic evolutionary origin.
2. Humans were created by a creator (the word creator does not necessarlily imply a "religious" creator).
3. Some combination of the above (for example the first humans were created and then evolved into present forms).
None of the above options are directly "religious" and students should be provided information and interpretation from the facts of science for each of them. This can be done for example by having a discussion for the fossil and other evidence for each of these options.
hooberus,
I agree that theoretically you probably could have a discussion about intelligent creators without religious overtones. In practice, though, I'm not sure this is possible.
Also, the main question is: what is science?
Science deals with the testable. If there is no testable evidence for a theory, then there is no reason for it to be offered as a valid option. It may, in fact, be the correct explanation (maybe god did create everything and make it look like it was the product of unguided evolution*), but there is no way to prove or test it, thus it is not science. If it's not science, it doesn't belong in a science classroom. Such discussions are better left to philosophy and comparative religion courses.
In your example, 1 is testable and the other two are not. If there ever becomes a way of testing 2 and 3, and there is compelling evidence that supports one of those two theories, then I also believe they should be discussed in the science classroom because then they would be scientific theories.
rem
*maybe unseen intelligent beings really are directing the course of planets? But we have no way of knowing if they really are. We can't test the theory, so it's not science.
Is it science to postulate that the following may have a created origin even though no one saw it being formed (and thus its creation is not subject to observation) (though the object is).
What if an observer on mars saw this (below)from his telescope? He never observed it being formed yet shouldn't he still consider the possiblity that it was the result of a creation event unobserved to him? Even though he never observed its creation directly could he use the principals of science to postulate a creator for it. Or would this not be science.
Hooberus,
I agree that if you knew little or nothing of the planet Mars, then the picture you showed would be extremely interesting. Many theories of its origins, including intelligent creators, could be put forward. At that point everything is just speculation - no one theory has any advantage over the other. Nothing can be tested.
But then knowledge progresses. You learn more about the planet Mars and find that there is no water, no other signs of intelligent life on the planet. You could probably start to rule out indigenous intelligent creators, but what about space alien intelligent creators?
Then you send another probe to get a better picture and you see this:
Now talk of an intelligent designer seems ridiculous! Not only is there no evidence of an intelligent designer being anywhere near Mars, the object does not even look intelligently designed.
Almost the exact same road has been traveled by the question of our origins:
At first with little information, naturalists set out to highlight god's creation in nature. This seemed perfectly plausible at the time - everyone knew god created everything as set out in the scriptures, right? Everything looked like it was perfectly designed for its niche in the environment.
Then as the body of knowledge grew, people started noticing paterns and heirarchies in the fossil layers. They noticed that life has been on earth for a very long time. They started applying the scientific method, which requires theories to be testable. This means that the new theories had to agree with the new data they were finding.
Darwin publishes his theory of evolution which matches neatly with the data at the time. Other evolutionary theories that did not fit observation, such as Lamarkism, fell by the wayside. Most scientists still felt that god had created life using evolution, though.
As knowledge progressed, people started finding (or at leas acknowledging) things in nature that suggested that the design of life isn't very intelligent at all. Some would say it's short-sighted. Even Darwin acknowledged this in his day. As the scientific method evolved and data increased, the need to postulate a designer that guided evolution became unnecessary for most all scientists. (Many had figured this out much earlier). Yes, a god or gods may be doing it, but there is no evidence of it, so there is no point advancing non-falsifiable theories in the face of falsifiable ones. Naturalistic theories were able to explain why life fit its environment so well as to initially look intelligently designed.
So what originally looked to be obviously designed (face on Mars/Life) turned out to look less and less designed as it was examined. Today, we recognize such intelligent design arguments as 'god of the gaps' reasonings - unseen beings are postulated to explain the current gaps in our knowledge. They are not scientific and do not lead to useful theories or results. They do not end up teaching us any more about our universe. In fact, they can slow scientific progress as they did in the days when Creation was assumed as fact. As time goes on, these 'gaps' get smaller and smaller until the role of such a postulated invisible being is miniscule.
To me the natural laws that govern the universe, including the evolution of life are beautiful (though at times ugly from our anthropic standpoint as well). I don't see why god couldn't use such natural laws to create life. Of course, such a god might not resemble the god you have in mind.
rem
I think that for many lines of evidences the modern theories of macro-evolution and creation have about the same degree of testability. For example creationists point to embryology as evidence of a common creator and evolutionists point to embryology as evidence of common ancestry. I really don't think that with regards to embrylogy the general theory of macro-evolution is very testable since no matter if the embryos are are similar or different they are explained as evidence of evolution. Common ancestry or common ancestry with modification (both evolutionary theories).
Also the heirarchial pattern is explainable both by creation (especially creation according to typology) and evolution (decent with modification). Here evolution was supposedly derived from the pattern (which I believe was known to exist before modern evolutionary theory). Both creation (especilally creation according to typology) and evolution ( especially decent with modification) can be derived from the pattern. Since both can be derived from the pattern to explain the pattern I would say that both have the same degree of testability with regards to heirarchies.
