Phoenixstar

Thank you for the welcome.

Hehe no thanks I am doing my best to stay out of the personal attack on anyone person no mater how much I like or dislike them. Just saying that creation science is not science and therefore should not be in science class. Besides then you run into the which creation story do you teach. That is an entirely different topic in itself to debate about. Seemed like in that question you were asking me what side of the fence I was on concerning evolution/creation hope that clears it up. Sorry for not stating that in my initial post.

I follow where the evidence leads and my reason tells me.

RufusAtticus

Obviously you have never worked in science.

Quetzal

At the risk of being labelled as engaging in a reductio fallacy, I would be interested in Hugo explaining how long he would expect it to take to provide the "counterevidence" for creationism. I mean, as a percentage of class time out of say a 137-hour US high school science curriculum (6, 40-minute periods per week per school year). As a basis to go on, how much class time would it take to provide an explanation for just the following standard creationist mis-statements:

1. It is possible that the life forms on earth are due to creation by a higher intelligence at some point or points in the history of our planet. Although the higher intelligence is presumably not able to be studied by science it is not necessarily unscientific to study features of life forms which reveal signs of creation. Mainstream science unjustifiably extrapolates from Darwin's evidence of small scale microevolution or variation within an archetype to macroevolution.

A. The tree of life constructed by comparing anatomies highlights differences as much as it highlights similarities. The distinctness of the basic types of organisms, anatomical features and genetic parts are approximately what one would expect following the creation of basic kinds for distinct purposes followed by the operation of Darwin's natural selection, generations of reproduction and hybridization. Examples of anatomical novelties (e.g.: multicellularity, respiration, circulation, the nervous system, the backbone, jaws of jawed fish, limbs, legs, wings, the shelled egg of birds/reptiles, the placenta of mammals, feathers of birds) that distinguish higher groups. Examples of distinct kinds identifiable by hybridization criteria (e.g.: Canidae = dogs/wolves/foxes/jackals, Equidae = horses/donkeys/zebra & Funariaceae = mosses).

B. The fossil record similarly displays distinct anatomies of extinct organisms and the fossil gaps predicted by Darwin have generally not been filled in by paleontologists digging for over a century. Although some examples of organisms with mixed features such as whale-like animals with legs or reptiles with mammalian features can be found there is still a systematic lack of evidence of gradual transitions. The lack of good examples of gradual transitions has led to the well known evolutionary theory of 'Punctuated Equilibrium' which explains that evolution occurs in jumps in small populations in such a way that the transitionary fossils are rarely left behind. Alternatively it is possible that the kinds of organisms simply cover a very large 'space' of anatomies but were still created separately as suggested by the gaps. Examples: Cambrian explosion, backbones, limbs, digits, wings, bat sonar.

C. The fossil order is approximately in agreement with evolutionary trees generated from anatomical and molecular similarity which in turn are approximately complexity arrangements. However, in many cases the trees predict 'ghost' lineages where organisms are predicted to have existed but are not present in the fossil record for up to hundreds of millions of years of supposed geological time. The creation possibilities for explanation of the fossil order include (i) progressive creation over geological time, accepting the mainstream dating methods, and (ii) that a large flood buried and fossilized organisms at different layers based on the interpretation of much of the seawater and freshwater layers on land as being due to cataclysmic flood waters. Option (i) explains the fossil order through an evolution-like creation order. Although some good evidence of catastrophic formation of the geological column exists (including fossil graveyards and strong ripple effects evident in many layers), option (ii) proposes, with little direct evidence currently, that this could generate the observed fossil oderings. Mechanisms of fossil ordering include relative mobility of organisms, water sorting properties and ecological zoning. These mechanisms also explain problems such as the stratagraphical separation of dinosaurs and advanced mammals.

D. Anatomical features of organisms don't always appear in a 'monophyletic' fashion meaning that a feature wont always only appear once and then in every organism in that 'branch'. Vision and flight both appear in multiple parts of the tree separately. In the evolutionary scenario wings and eyes have each separately evolved on multiple occasions. There are hints that such 'convergences' may be too unlikely for evolution and special creation easily explains the appearance of anatomical features for designed purposes. At a finer level, all trees constructed by evolutionists have problems with 'convergences' with features appearing and reappearing at multiple positions along branches suggesting that instead, each creature was individually created. Large scale examples: wings in insects/dinosaurs/birds/bats. Eyes.

2. Genes are the lists of DNA bases that store information about our anatomical characteristics or traits. Blue/brown eyes, type A/B/O blood or short/tall are variants on the traits of eye color, blood type and height. These variants are called 'alleles'. A blue eyed person has two copies of the 'blue' allele - a gene with DNA that gives blue eyes. A tall person carries a 'tall' growth factor allele in his DNA. But the DNA is not a random series of 'bases'. Most random sequences result in a useless gene. So although it is very easy for a 'type A blood gene' to mutate into a 'type B blood gene' the genes for height or eye color have no similarity to those that code for blood type. Height, eye color and blood type genes all code for proteins that do a particular biochemical job. So although natural selection (an example of microevolution) and mutations can easily change alleles within a trait they can't easily do this from one trait to another. Some mainstream published research agrees that if macroevolution were true it would be 'more than repeated rounds of microevolution'. In addition, there has never been a documented case where new information was added to a genome.

3. The distinct gene 'families' do very specific jobs in cells and organisms. That is why most mutations are disadvantageous or simply change the 'strength' of an already existing function. This is why it is easy to lose a function or change the shape of a beak or become resistant to a drug through mutations. For the same reason nobody has seen the evolution of new systems in bacteria after millions of bacterial generations in the laboratory. Not only is the evolution of a new gene type difficult as described above, but anatomical, physiological and cellular systems appear to require a minimal number of such parts before they can work. Example of protein jobs: the ribosome, an enzyme & hemoglobin. All organisms have a ribosome to make proteins but only organisms that transport oxygen or electrons have hemoglobin family members.

4. Creationist geology, using examples such as rapid deposition of layered sediments during the Mount St. Helens eruption, show that catastrophism (i.e., a global flood), easily explains the observations of the geologic column. There is no reason to assume millions of years of geological time when thousands of layers can be deposited in a few short hours or days.

5. There are very few examples of spontaneous mutation observed in nature. Without exception, these all result in less viable individuals. For example, in radioactive environments mutations do appear. The outcome of these is pathological. We have witnessed the consequences of Chernobyl, deformed children and animals. They were born with worse capabilities, not better. In the wild, they wouldn't have any chance for survival. "Nature" itself takes care of them, so even if they stay alive, they can't reproduce. In our time it is possible to breed animals and plants resistant to diseases using genetic manipulation. Some results of these genetic manipulations are vegetables like giant peppers and tomatoes. These plants are dependent on man's care, they cannot survive in the wild by themselves. In addition, they came into existence as a result of the planning and creative efforts of humans. But this is not macroevolution either, since these tomatoes, even if they have different taste and an increased resistance to diseases, are still tomatoes, not new plants. Thus, only the microevolutionary process has been sped up artificially. We can state that natural selection selects the most viable ones from the pre-existing individuals, and perpetuates their gene combination. No new species are created in this process, as the macroevolutionary theory states. New capabilities and organs must have appeared suddenly and completely functional, otherwise they would have led to the death of the individuals.

6. According to the theory of organic evolution, species only develop the capabilities and organs necessary for their survival. Many times we hear that people use only a small portion of their brain. What about the unused part? How did we acquire it, if we never needed it? It's because we did not evolve from a single-celled thing, but we are God's Creation, like all other living creatures on earth. There is no other plausible explanation. Anywhere we look, we can see God's work. Only those who wander around with their eyes closed cannot see this, or rather don't want to see it.

7. The Cambrian explosion is best explained as the moment in which God created life. No new “kinds” of life appear after the Cambrian. In addition, there are no known ancestors to modern groups in pre-Cambrian rocks. If evolution is true, too many mutations had to occur to explain the origin of so many new forms at the beginning of the Cambrian.

Again, the above is only a tiny tiny sampling of some of the less idiotic creationist assertions. I'll leave aside the probability that a teacher would need to be able to respond to 100's of misquotes, long-refuted statements about moon dust, the 2d LoT, polonium halos, speed of light inconstency, vapor canopies, "the probability of a single cell appearing all at once is 10^umpteen gazillion", design can be inferred from the existence of specified complexity in irreducibly complex structures, homochirality, etc etc etc. Not to mention the really inane creationist arguments from places like AiG and ICR.

So Hugo, how much class time is appropriate for a discussion of creationism?

Gurdur

Let's all just calm down, shall we ?
hmmm ?

Strawman.
Let's look at the facts instead.Shout it as loud as you like --- personally I think you are confusing three different issues, as well as making a huge tactical mistake.
1) The teaching of creationism can easily be subsumed into a set history of pre-scientific ideas in biology courses --- the skeptical thinking and comparative mythology/theology learnt in that would be invaluble starting from an early age

2) Most religionists in the UK aren't Creationists. So you're missing a point.

3) Dawkins could learn the principle why it is possible to win every battle but lose the war.
Stridency tends to alienate possible allies; what does Dawkins actually want to do here ?
Be our atheist hero ?
Or contribute ever more to growing real-world secularism ?
Welcome to the messy real world; those two aims may not at all be congruent.

Nothing like a sweeping ad hominem and erroneous generalization coupled with demonizing the opposition to really help a rational argument along, is there ?

We're talking real-world messy politics and social changes here, not Agitprop For The Barricades.

eh ?
Take a look back at my suggestion above in this post, for example.
Let's just calm down, shall we ?
Let's not rush to assumptions, and let's have a good discussion free of a headlong rush to judgment.

GunnerJ

To avoid any intellectual dishonesty (and I'll assume you didn't intend to take Dawkin's words out of context to fit a caricature of his position you've been building), when Dawkins used the phrase, "intellectually fulfilled atheists," he was no talking about what he "wants to make people." He was talking about what the theory of evolution allows atheists to be.

Here is the quote, in context:

Bold emphasis mine.

Harpy

Originally posted by Harpy
Science and Religion cannot be reconciled by honest men.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rufus:
"Obviously you have never worked in science."

You are right Rufus I never have worked in science but I like to think I apply critical thinking to my everyday life. Tell me how does a Christian scientist reconcile science and religious belief in the supernatural.

On another entirely unrelated note.
I'd like to take this opportunity to say thanks to Rufus, PZ, Peez and Oolon and all the other very knowledgable posters. The main reason I frequent this board is to learn from you. Never forget the lurkers.

Gurdur
You may have a point and I will think about what you have said.

I have calmed down now

Gurdur

Thanks.
Please keep in mind Hugo Holbling is not a Creationist; he's trying to describe what helped him become an atheist and a skeptic, so it's definitely worthwhile looking at his suggestions, and keeping criticism constructive.

emotional

What a bigot I'm up here against!



Atheism isn't for everyone.



Ohmygosh! Occam's Razor! The One True Idol which all materialists worship! But they forget one thing: parsimony is not a key to the truth.



The truth! The truth! The TRUTH! A fanatic for the TRUTH! The mirror image of Christian fundamentalist preachers, that's what you and Dawkins are! The world is in bloodshed and tears because of this zeal for the truth! Eff you and your truth to hell!



There is evidence for life after death. Not that you'd accept it as such...



I don't believe in God. I'm not a theist.



I'm talking about metaphysical certainties. When Dawkins says the Universe is without purpose, he's not making a scientific statement, he's making a metaphysical statement. He's therefore stepping on the same dark ground that his theist adversaries are stepping on. "Universe has no purpose" -- HOW does he know that?! The universe told him, "I have no purpose"?! That's his own statement of faith, and ONLY a statement of faith.



Being right is not the most important thing in the world, you know! Osama bin Laden thinks he's right!



Ibid.

Hugo Holbling

Thanks, Gurdur. At least someone appreciates the spirit of the discussion.

Hello, Morpho. I complained at those arguments before because i am not suggesting that all dodgy ideas be included in science classes or that science teachers have an infinite amount of time which should be employed lest a few crazies take offense. Rather, creationism is the main concern here; those other ideas have few (or no) advocates, less financial and other backing and are unlikely to become part of curriculae any time soon. Fighting the drive for creationism to be recognized as mainstream science and included on that basis in the manner of some here doesn't appear to have worked very well, so perhaps a rapproachment is possible that would suit everyone?

It is a blatant and rather disingenuous non sequitur to suppose that if i am unable or unwilling to give details of lesson plans then somehow my proposal to avoid the all-or-nothing tactics employed by both sides is without substance. The point is to bring creationism into the curriculum without giving it free reign, while going some way to addressing creationist demands. The alternative appears to be blocking their attempts, further stoking their resolve and leading eventually to their "victory" on a small to medium scale that may or may not cause them to ask for more. If, on the other hand, some approach could be found along the lines i am suggesting, any further rhetoric from the creationist side would be seen to be just that.

As Gurdur said:

Unfortunately there wouldn't be a simple answer to this. How long would the creationists require in a scheme like i propose? Too much, and they would do themselves a disservice by appearing unreasonable and theologically motivated; too little, and they would be unlikely to agree to anything. There would be no absolute requirement to address all creationist ideas, any more than something similar would be need in a discussion of the steady-state theory.

The over-riding point here is that creationists are not going to go away any time soon. Shall we seek some form of compromise, however unsatisfactory it may seem to those who think only the truth should be taught in schools, or continue to play an all-or-nothing hand?

Oolon Colluphid

Erm, it can't be very persuasive then, can it? Because far more counter-intuitive things than that are readily accepted round here (eg quantum mechanics), because the evidence for them is persuasive.
Um, just what exactly is a "metaphysical certainty", and how do you know?

TTFN, Oolon