ex-robot

scigirl,

I don't know about JP, by yecs would most likely say this is different than believing all organisms share a common ancestor or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. On the icr's list of scientists, they have Macreadie with aids, malaria, etc. and Bullock with cancer. I also recall Kramer in In Six Days mentioning his research with studying how different organisms are effected by substances and how it relates to humans.
If you asked any scientist on icr's list do you believe the above explanation/description to be true, I would bet money that they would all say "yes". If you then asked them if they believed in "evolution", they would probably say "no". If you then asked them if they believed the "definition" of evolution as "evolutionary biologists" define it, they would probably say "yes".

Remember, that yec scientists don't have a problem with natural selection, adaptation, mutations, etc. They evidently use it in their research just like any other scientist.
I believe JP was referring to common descent and not the theory of evolution. The word "evolution" in my opinion will always mean common descent to the public-at-large, and so yec will always hate that word. If you discuss the underlying process of the theory, you will have common ground.
I would highly disagree. YEC object to the teaching of "the origin of life" and common descent, etc. There is much more to explore and learn than these two aspects of biology. Yes, the origin of life is supposedly not part of "evolution", but you will still find it mentioned in biology textbooks and illustrated with cute animations on evolution specials.

I imagine there will be people replying with "but all those other parts of biology lead up to common descent" and related comments. It doesn't matter. They might have a problem with teachers saying these things lead to common descent, but they do not have a problem with the process itself (natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, etc.

Just some thoughts.

xr

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: ex-robot ]</p>

scigirl

ex-robot,

Interesting points. However, because YECs disagree so vehemently to the theory of evolution, there is a demonization of all science which occurs. When you reject evidence for an old earth, or for evolution, you are rejecting a lot of different basic tenets of science. Therefore, YECS on average tend to be less educated about science in general, which is a bad thing, IMHO.

scigirl

ex-robot

I don't see it that way. I see that they vehemently hate the term evolution because it is so intertwined (spelling??) with common descent. When they say "evolution" they mean common descent. I think most lay people (evolutionist or creationist) who don't have a degree in some biological science or keep up-to-date would associate common descent with "evolution" as well. Evolutionists then turn this against them by explaining a few details about the theory of evolution (which 9 out of 10 times, yec agree with) and say "see, yec are against science!" because they don't agree with "evolution" which we observe today, etc. I have read the bios at icr, and quite a few of them have a lot of experience in secular science fairs, research companies, secular universities, and so on. I don't think they are against science persay. My fundy/yec school had required science projects starting at first grade. (and talking about how God was involved was not required) As I have argued before, Snelling can't be a consultant/research geologist in the mineral/mining industry for so long unless he is a competent geologist. There is obviously more to Geology than the evo/cre issues. Basically, I don't think you can fairly paint all yec with a hovind brush. That goes for painting all evolutionists as atheists.

xr
*I do however believe that there are a ton of hovindites out there who are morons, sit back in their pews and say "amen, preach it brother!", never check out things for themselves, etc.

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: ex-robot ]</p>

RufusAtticus

Hehe. I made a conscience decision to continue the debate. It just helps show that BB can't contend with science. I say start a new thread and continue the non-evo topic.

-RvFvS

ex-robot

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: ex-robot ]</p>

RufusAtticus

As an evolutionary biologist myself, I can safely disagree with this statement. (Biological) Evolution very much includes common descent. Evolution is the heritable change of properties or frequencies of properties of populations of organisms over generations. The ICR clearly disagrees with this since they object to common descent. To do so they must say that properties of populations can only change so much. They might agree that frequencies can change, but nothing else. They clearly object to mutation and the appearence of novel features. Anyone, who argues that life consists of immutable kinds established by God, does not agree with the consensous opionon of Evolutionary Biology with respect to biological change or history.

-RvFvS

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

scigirl

Ex-robot,

I thought of this analogy today when posting at the BB:

Sure, you can accept microevolution, but not macroevolution. Equally, you can believe that gravity is what causes your pencil to drop to the floor, but disbelieve that gravity holds the solar system together. That's fine, if you only want to study pencil dropping. But if you ever want to speculate about a larger system, you are going to be in trouble.

Helen had this question, and this was my reply:
Call it whatever you want. Evolution IS only variation + natural selection.

I've noticed from debating people at infidels that many creationists are surprised at the simplicity of evolutionary theory. They are like, "that's it? Just variation, and selection of variations that are more advantageous?" and we infidels are like 'yep that's it' and they are like "Wow, I accept evolution now, so . . . do I have to like worship Satan now or something?"

Ok so it doesn't go exactly like that. But the idea of natural selection is a simple one--and yeah, you could just call it variation. But imagine that variation occuring over millions of years, and you get a variety of variations (descent with modification).

froggie/scigirl

ex-robot

Rufus,

I think we are speaking about two different things. (let me know if I'm off) I should have clarified that I am saying common descent of all organisms from a single common ancestor or humans/chimps, etc. ICR, those scientists on that list, etc. definitely believe in a limited form of common descent. Thank somebody that they haven't thought up a new term for that one yet. That being said, I still believe they would agree with your definition. (I only say "your definition" because I see a different one so often).

Mutation? What about mutations exactly?

There is no doubt they disagree with the big picture in evolutionary biology. From what I have seen and read, 90% of the time when an evolutionist (evolutionary biologist or otherwise) points to evidence of "evolution", it is something that yec agree with in of itself. They of course would disagree with the common descent of all organisms, one "kind" of organism into another, etc. implications. (kind? you tell me!)

Novel features: That brings up a good point. Maybe another thread would be warranted. What exactly is a novel feature? YEC believe a mutation can cause a bear kind to develop webbed feet (polar bear) for instance. I would think that would be novel. Just a thought.

xr

ex-robot

If you left out the last sentence, everyone would be an evolutionist. I think it is obvious that you cannot separate common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor, human/chimps, etc. with "evolution". If you told them that they have to accept that humans share a common ancestor with chimps, you would get "oh, then I'm not an evolutionist" in most cases. YEC also obviously believe in a ton of variety and the ability of variation, natural selection, mutations, etc. to cause many different changes but not to the extent that evolutionists do. As I pointed out before, yec scientists do study the big picture using science just like evolutionists do. They will just not say "evolution" had anything to do with it due to the assocation.

What do you think the everyday joe thinks of when he/she hears the word "evolution" or the "theory of evolution"? Change over time? Change of allele frequencies? Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species? No, I believe most people automatically think about apes/chimps and humans. Who's fault is it that the public-at-large doesn't know/understand that "evolution" is so "simple"? I think it would be in the best interests of both sides to officially separate "evolution" with "common descent of all things, etc." to the public, so everybody could just move on to arguing why they are or not related. Of course, I don't see that happening.

xr

scigirl

Hello ex-robot,

Interesting points, but I still think that YEC is partially responsible for demonizing science. Let me explain further.

I totally agree. One of the reasons people don't want to accept evolution is simple arrogance. "I didn't evolve from no damn dirty ape." Religion just provides an excuse for that arrogance.
People are not just uneducated about evolution. There is a serious lack of scientific understanding in this country, despite the fact that we spend more per capita on education than any other country. What is the answer? I don't know. I do think that scientists could do a better job educating the masses.

However, I do think that YEC, because of the way they equate ALL christian beliefs with rejecting evolution, and make it sound like all evolutionists are atheists, does not help the situation much. They would rather keep their kids ignorant about science, as long as they can say "God" in school. That is despicable, IMHO. But scientists are too busy trying to cure cancer and stuff to fight this drivel. . .

Consider this: If YEC is totally right (the earth is young, evolution never happened), than one of the following is true:
1) All scientists are complete fucking morons, and have been so for over 100 years, despite the fact that they are the ones studying the evidence
or
2) Scientists know they are wrong, but are promoting an 'evil atheist conspiracy.'

If YEC is false, than Genesis 1 is not scientifically true. In that case, one of the following choices is correct:
3) God does exist, but people who use the Bible for science are misguided. Most "liberal christians" have adopted this theory--like my boss--and have no problems reconciling their religion with science, recognizing that there are different kinds of truths, and that gen 1 was NOT meant to be a biology book.
4) God is either a liar, or even worse, He doesn't exist!

Ex-robot--I've spent a lot of time debating YECS, and this is how I see their reasoning. They refuse to see choice number 3 above. It's either 1 or 2, or 4. YECS are often very digital thinkers; there are no shades of gray. It is truly sad to see their type of reasoning. Either God is a liar or nonexistent, or scientists are all evil and stupid. With those choices, which one do you think they pick?

It's no surprise that YECS spend so much time separating "evolution science" and "evolutionists" from all the other scientists, because even they are not deluded enough to think that all scientists are evil or stupid. It's easier to demonize the select few who study evolution, and mix that with some weird view about how satan created fossils, or something similar.

Except--there is no difference between an evolutionary biologist, and other scientists. They use the same methods of inference and hypothesis testing! So, when a YEC throws out evidence for an old earth, or for common descent, they really truly are attacking the scientific method. The same method which brings us cures for diseaes, or explanations about the solar system. This is why YEC is not just anti-evolution, it is anti-science.

I'm sorry if some people have a problem with the fact that common descent did occur, and that random mutation + natural selection can explain it.

To me, your idea would be as ludicrous as teaching people that "yes, gravity is what causes apples to fall on your head, but nooooo, gravity does NOT cause planets to orbit the sun. That's totally different."

There is NO difference between micro and macroevolution, except the scale of time.

It completely amazes me that some YECS will accept every bit of evolutionary theory except macroevolution. One of the people at the BB argued that, "what you are talking about is certain traits that give a selective advantage, and those people survive, and then the whole population changes. But that's not evolution, that's just variation and selection"

Yeah, and planets orbiting around the sun is just related to their masses over the square of their distance, but it's not gravity.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

scigirl