RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

TaoPoohBear -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/7/2008 10:01:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sophie11

You know PoohBear, I have been noticing in this thread and others that you have an extremely patronizing way of responding to others.

As far as evolution being an explanation of facts, that depends on what subject you are saying evolved. When it comes to humans, the science community has no observations of such a thing occuring.


I suppose you're right, should have just left it at -
quote:

Colloquially, "theory" can mean a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous: a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions.

In answer to -
quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam

quote:

The science classroom is the place to teach proven science.


Which evolution is NOT. It is a theory, nothing more....


IF Creation Science would confine itself to mankind's origins, I'd have no problem with that in a classroom.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/7/2008 8:06:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephanos
Anyone who rejects Creationism, is not a Christian.

{Ahem} : TOS, middle of #6 . . . ?

Personally, I reject creationism as a scientific theory. Let's be specific here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.
The other religious creation stories read like poor fairy tales.

So what? Does that attest to the scientific validity of creationism?

quote:

It has everything to do with covering the cons with the pros, which some folks seem to want to ignore.

No, it does not. Science is not American Idol: you don't get to call in and vote for your "fave."

Again, if you are going to open the door to advancing "alternatives" to hard science, then by all means let's be completely fair and open the door to alternative math, or alternative English (we are already teaching alternative history).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sophie
it cracks me up that the idea of creationism being brought into the science classroom is the thing that gets some people so upset!

Does it also amuse you that America continues to slip behind other western countries in our quality of education? Would you like us to keep gleaning such finely educated students like Miss Teen USA 2007 from South Carolina?



stephanos -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/7/2008 9:02:10 PM)

I dont think so. Not a TOS violation.

here is why. I said quite clearly, that one can believe in evolution/big bang/ect CAN be a christian, if they give God the due credit for being the one who created and DID everything.

IF anyone rejects that God CREATED the Universe, THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIAN. I am NOT saying 6 day Creation, I am saying anyone who rejects "GOD created the heavens and earth" is not saved, as they reject that God is the author of the universe.

This is why I dont like attacks on "Creationism" or "ID". Because people like you get blinders on, and cant admit that GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE. Because in the simplest definition, that IS creationism! God CREATED! Disagree with HOW God CREATED is fine, but to ignore, or say that God did not create, is incomplatable with Christianity.



Marcus. -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/7/2008 9:58:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.
The other religious creation stories read like poor fairy tales.

So what? Does that attest to the scientific validity of creationism?


You were asking for what was different, not how does it line up scientifically. However, the Creation story generally matches up with the big bang theory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:

It has everything to do with covering the cons with the pros, which some folks seem to want to ignore.

No, it does not. Science is not American Idol: you don't get to call in and vote for your "fave."

Again, if you are going to open the door to advancing "alternatives" to hard science, then by all means let's be completely fair and open the door to alternative math, or alternative English (we are already teaching alternative history).


I'm not talking about alternatives. You drug that dog back in. I was referring to the difference in the theory versus the fossil record. The theory still has some scientific weaknesses. That is what I was referring to some people wanting to avoid. I want to know that the theory won't be sanitized in textbooks of the scientific weaknesses that it has.



mapachito13 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/7/2008 10:17:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephanos

one can believe in evolution/big bang/ect CAN be a christian, if they give God the due credit for being the one who created and DID everything.

IF anyone rejects that God CREATED the Universe, THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIAN. I am NOT saying 6 day Creation, I am saying anyone who rejects "GOD created the heavens and earth" is not saved, as they reject that God is the author of the universe.

This is why I dont like attacks on "Creationism" or "ID". Because people like you get blinders on, and cant admit that GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE. Because in the simplest definition, that IS creationism! God CREATED! Disagree with HOW God CREATED is fine, but to ignore, or say that God did not create, is incomplatable with Christianity.


I actually 100% agree with that statement. I hope that doesn't make you wrong now! [:o][:D]



1dblthnk02 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/7/2008 10:22:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephanos
Because in the simplest definition, that IS creationism! God CREATED!

That is an over-simplification.
Creationism is touted as an alternate theory to evolution and other scientific precepts; therefore, it is argued as worthy of inclusion in science cirricula. That's the problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.
You were asking for what was different, not how does it line up scientifically.

Actually, todd_t asked the question, and he did ask how it lines up scientifically. More specifically, he asked why non-Christian creation accounts were less scientific than Genesis (although he mistakenly used the word "more" rather than less).

quote:

I'm not talking about alternatives. You drug that dog back in.

Because that is what the OP is about.

quote:

I want to know that the theory won't be sanitized in textbooks of the scientific weaknesses that it has.

What "weaknesses?"-- the fact that science doesn't have all of the answers? Not having all of the answers is not so much a weakness as a fact of life.

How about acknowledging evolution's strengths as a theory? Why do you have a problem with that?



stephanos -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/7/2008 10:25:13 PM)

1dblthnk02-

Do you deny that God CREATED the universe? Do you believe that God had nothing to do with the CREATION of the universe? Was God completely hands off and came about only after the universe was formed? Or do you out right deny God Himself exists?



mapachito13 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/7/2008 10:28:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

Again, if you are going to open the door to advancing "alternatives" to hard science, then by all means let's be completely fair and open the door to alternative math, or alternative English (we are already teaching alternative history).



I hate to burst your bubble but evolution is not "hard science" it is a theory. If it was hard science they would call it a law or corrolary. Evolution still has many unexplained holes in it. The missing link is a big one.

Also Darwin's theory of natural selection doesn't account for how evolution of a species didn't happen in a constant fashion but by eons of nothing then major changes all at once. It also doesn't explain the evolution of higher organisms, like an elephant that reproduces once every decade, as opposed to bacteria and archaea that reproduce more rapidly. In other words, the theory of natural selection fits the simpler organisms better than if applied to more complex life forms.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/7/2008 10:29:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephanos
Do you deny that God CREATED the universe? Do you believe that God had nothing to do with the CREATION of the universe? Was God completely hands off and came about only after the universe was formed?

What do my personal beliefs have to do with the OP?

quote:

Or do you out right deny God Himself exists?

I am not an atheist, but I no longer necessarily believe that the God of the bible is an accurate description. . .

. . . not that it has anything to do with this discussion.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/7/2008 10:47:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13
I hate to burst your bubble but evolution is not "hard science" it is a theory.

Theories are hard science.

quote:

If it was hard science they would call it a law or corrolary.

Wrong.
A law does not give an explanation for an observed phenomenon. For example, the law of gravity tells us how to predict and measure the phenomenon of mass attraction, but it does not tell us how or why it happens in the first place.
A corollary is that which follows without an explanation even being necessary at all.

A theory is best summed up thus:
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing[...]
Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis."

Now, does this sound like hard science, or does it not?

quote:

Evolution still has many unexplained holes in it. The missing link is a big one.

"The missing link" is an out-dated concept.

quote:

Also Darwin's theory of natural selection doesn't account for how evolution of a species didn't happen in a constant fashion but by eons of nothing then major changes all at once.

Darwin also did not know about DNA or genetic drift. Clearly he had an incomplete picture that has been greatly expanded since his day.

quote:

In other words, the theory of natural selection fits the simpler organisms better than if applied to more complex life forms.

Natural selection is not the whole picture.



stephanos -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/7/2008 10:47:27 PM)

So first you say I am a TOS violator, now you are denying the God of the bible?

I do think this is at the very heart of the OP. You deny any sense of the idea that God CREATED the universe. It is attutitudes like yours that has corrupted and blinded the academic world today. And for that matter the Scientific Method itself. If you cant prove something exists, you deny it out right. And it is funny as evolutionists can not even prove that the missing link exists. It takes more faith, IMHO to believe in soemthing that has NO evidence supporting it, then God who has never had anything prove or even attempt to prove that He does not exist. Truly there is more and more evidence found every day that supports the Bible. Including in the fields of biology and anthropology. Even then, to out right deny even the possibility that there is a creator of the universe, is academically dishonest at best. To deny that there are problems with theology, with out even mentioning Creationism, is also dishonest. I have already brought up several problems with the Evolutionary Theory, which no one seems to care to talk about. Apparently the mention of holes in the THEORY of Evolution, is automatically labeled as "Creationism propaganda", and all such challenges are quickly ignored.

So again, lets go over some of the "problems" with Evolution.

Missing link....Where is it?

Carbon Dating....Currently the speculation is that it is only accurate in dating objects less than 70,000 years old. But that date has been dropping in the past several years. It use to be that Carbon Dating was used to prove the dates of dinosaurs.

Spontaneous creation....While Christian evolutionists have a easy time with this problems, athiests and those who "doubt" the god of the bible do. What caused things to happen? What caused the big Bang? What caused the first amino acids and proteins to form?

These are just the big three. How do you face these holes in the evolutionary theory? Ignore them like most?



Marcus. -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/7/2008 11:03:07 PM)

Weaknesses of the theory that I remember from paleontology classes.

*There are no transitional fossils. Many have been touted and some created but none stood up to scrutiny.

*Evolution if it occurred was over only a several teens or hundred million years and not billions. The fossil record shows a multitude of new species with no apparent transition in the Precambrian Explosion.

*The Birmingham moths that used to be included in textbooks as proof of evolution failed to point out that the different colors were in the same species not new ones, and the coloration disappeared when the environmental factors changed.

*Embryonic recapitulation. The old pen drawings of the human embryo going through stages of development similar to most phyla. Modern tech blows that away with inutero live video and photos.

*Fraudulent examples of other human species. Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man,etc.

It was amazingly difficult to find these examples using generic searches which is rather strange. I just happened to remember these frauds.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/7/2008 11:09:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephanos
You deny any sense of the idea that God CREATED the universe.

All I am saying is that it is not a scientific theory.

quote:

It is attitudes like yours that has corrupted and blinded the academic world today.

Yeah, demanding little things like theories actually be tested repeatedly is such an inconvenience for creationism. Academicians are such pains . . .

quote:

If you cant prove something exists, you deny it out right.

Some evidence would help.

quote:

And it is funny as evolutionists can not even prove that the missing link exists.

That is because it is an outdated concept based on the bias of the static fixity of species.

quote:

It takes more faith, IMHO to believe in soemthing that has NO evidence supporting it

Exactly. That is precisely why creationism is not science: no evidence.

quote:

Truly there is more and more evidence found every day that supports the Bible.

Uh huh.

quote:

Even then, to out right deny even the possibility that there is a creator of the universe, is academically dishonest at best.

Whetehr or not a creator exists has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

quote:

Apparently the mention of holes in the THEORY of Evolution, is automatically labeled as "Creationism propaganda", and all such challenges are quickly ignored.

Because most, if not all, of creationist objections are nothing but invalid strawman arguments.

quote:

Carbon Dating....Currently the speculation is that it is only accurate in dating objects less than 70,000 years old. But that date has been dropping in the past several years.

So? Science is supposed to be self-correcting. And there are other forms of radio metric dating that can date evidence to much greater degrees of time.

quote:

What caused things to happen? What caused the big Bang?

The theory of evolution does not hinge on the answers to these questions.

quote:

What caused the first amino acids and proteins to form?

In order to study evolution/biology, all that matters is how they form and interact .



1dblthnk02 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/7/2008 11:23:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.
There are no transitional fossils. Many have been touted and some created but none stood up to scrutiny.

Wrong. Many stand up to scientific scrutiny, just not the tunnel-visioned scrutiny of creationism.

quote:

Evolution if it occurred was over only a several teens or hundred million years and not billions.

. . . Based on what?

quote:

The Birmingham moths that used to be included in textbooks as proof of evolution failed to point out that the different colors were in the same species not new ones, and the coloration disappeared when the environmental factors changed.

And who figured this out?: scientists. Does it disprove evolution?: no.

quote:

Embryonic recapitulation.

Actually, the ebryos of vertebrates all look very similar if you compare them in their early stages.

quote:

Fraudulent examples of other human species.

And who figured out that they were frauds: creationists?
NO-- scientists did.



Marcus. -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/7/2008 11:37:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.
There are no transitional fossils. Many have been touted and some created but none stood up to scrutiny.

Wrong. Many stand up to scientific scrutiny, just not the tunnel-visioned scrutiny of creationism.

I'm not bring that up you are again. What transitional fossils are you referring to? I remember studying many different types of macro/microfossils, some of which are identical to modern species. However they are listed as other species because of the age of the fossil. I still can see some of those fossils in my memory. We spent weeks and months on some.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:

Evolution if it occurred was over only a several teens or hundred million years and not billions.

. . . Based on what?
It's called the Precambrian Explosion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:

The Birmingham moths that used to be included in textbooks as proof of evolution failed to point out that the different colors were in the same species not new ones, and the coloration disappeared when the environmental factors changed.

And who figured this out?: scientists. Does it disprove evolution?: no.

I was pointing it out as a fraudulent example. I've read that some school districts have the textbooks with it as fact in them still. And yes I know scientists corrected that error/fraud.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:

Embryonic recapitulation.

Actually, the ebryos of vertebrates all look very similar if you compare them in their early stages.

I was referring to the pen and ink drawings in older textbooks. Same as above. Some school districts still use them and teach this stuff unbelievably.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:

Fraudulent examples of other human species.

And who figured out that they were frauds: creationists?
NO-- scientists did.

Yes I know again. These fraudulent attempts should remain in the textbooks so the students have a balanced understanding that some researchers are willing to use fraud to prove their theories and obtain funding.

You keep bringing up creationism with me when I haven't. You must be thinking of one of the other posters. Unless you just "know" that's what I'm really working towards. If you think you're channeling my thoughts or intent you're far afield. [sm=shakinghead.gif]



stephanos -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/7/2008 11:52:55 PM)

Marcus I think this is a great illustration on what is wrong with the evolutionist crowd in general. Someone comes with actual valid problems with their theory, and they quickly jump to lable them a "creationist" while largely ignoring the merit of such arguments. They attack anything that does not support their golden calf, even if such evidence is from "scientists" as them selves. Rather, anyone who does not believe like them, is quickly denied to be a scientist even if such a person has years experience in the field.



TaoPoohBear -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/8/2008 9:15:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

*Evolution if it occurred was over only a several teens or hundred million years and not billions. The fossil record shows a multitude of new species with no apparent transition in the Precambrian Explosion.


On the sparseness of the pre-Cambrian fossil record -
quote:

It has long been suspected that the sparseness of the pre-Cambrian fossil record reflects these two problems. First, organisms may not have sequestered and secreted much in the way of fossilizable hard parts; and second, the environments in which they lived may have characteristically dissolved those hard parts after death and recycled them. An exception was the mysterious "small shelly fauna" -- minute shelled animals that are hard to categorize -- that left abundant fossils in the early Cambrian. Recently, minute fossil embryos dating to 570 million years ago have also been discovered. Even organisms that hadn't evolved hard parts, and thus didn't leave fossils of their bodies, left fossils of the trails they made as they moved through the Precambrian mud. Life was flourishing long before the Cambrian "explosion".


I'm not the science expert you fellows are, but I'm pretty good at research.



Marcus. -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/8/2008 9:31:53 AM)

It's been over 20 years since college. Looks like I got the term wrong earlier.

From Wikipedia:

The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the seemingly rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals around 530 million years ago, as evidenced by the fossil record.[1][2] This was accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms.1[3] Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organised into colonies. In the following 70 million to 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude,2 and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s.[4]

The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[5] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[6]

The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid evolution; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian rocks.

Article Continues



1dblthnk02 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/8/2008 5:44:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.
What transitional fossils are you referring to?

There are too many to list.

quote:

I remember studying many different types of macro/microfossils, some of which are identical to modern species.

No. Ancient fossils are not 100% identical to modern species; although, some are very similar.

quote:

It's called the Precambrian Explosion.

The Cambrian explosion does not disprove the age of the earth.

quote:

I was pointing it out as a fraudulent example. I've read that some school districts have the textbooks with it as fact in them still.

Some high school text books are not worth the paper that they are printed on.

quote:

And yes I know scientists corrected that error/fraud.

And that is all that matters: it proves that science is self-correcting, contrary to creationists' claims.

quote:

Yes I know again. These fraudulent attempts should remain in the textbooks so the students have a balanced understanding that some researchers are willing to use fraud to prove their theories and obtain funding.

No. The afore-mentioned frauds were not committed by scientists, but rather by hucksters looking for publicity and a quick buck. They did not "prove" anyone's theory except, prehaps, P.T. Barnum's.

quote:

You keep bringing up creationism with me when I haven't.

You apepar to be defending creationism in the classroom. That is the theme of this thread.

quote:

Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple

Note the word "most", not all.

quote:

In the following 70 million to 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude,2 and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s.

Or else fossils became exceedingly more abundant; this is also a distinct possibility.

quote:

The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere

No. Fauna does not appear "out of nowhere" within the fossil record.

quote:

Interpretation is difficult

. . . Therefore, conclusions based on it are inconclusive.



blessedinnyc -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/8/2008 6:46:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephanos

Marcus I think this is a great illustration on what is wrong with the evolutionist crowd in general. Someone comes with actual valid problems with their theory, and they quickly jump to lable them a "creationist" while largely ignoring the merit of such arguments. They attack anything that does not support their golden calf, even if such evidence is from "scientists" as them selves. Rather, anyone who does not believe like them, is quickly denied to be a scientist even if such a person has years experience in the field.

I think that you are making a few too many generalizations about the "pro-Established-Science" crowd.

If there are holes and gaps in evolution, it means that we need a better natural model to explain things. We need to come up with a natural explanation for the holes in Evolution the same way we do with physics. In the most extreme case, we came up with Einsteinian relativity as something that almost always agrees with Newtonian Physics- but explains a few things that Newton can't- why light from Mercury bends when it goes around the sun. We could have said that "God comes down and moves Mercury slightly out of orbit", but it would be insulting to give God such a petty and menial role in the universe. It also seems petty to give God a menial role in earth's evolutionary history- filling in the minor gaps that have yet to be explained by sceince.

But in any case, I think this decision is good for promoting a liberal discussion about evolution. I think that we need to challenge ideas in order to make them more certain or make minor improvements to them. Nitpicking the details of evolution may help us arrive at a more effective understanding of earth's natural history.

I think that God is one of those beings that is difficult for science to understand, study, and categorize, and if we're going to prove God's existence in a public context, we have to use something that goes a little deeper than science- we need to use philosophical metaphysics.

A good argument to start with is Aquinas's first cause argument. It says that everything we can understand came from something else, and therefore, because we exist, there must have been something that we can't understand that started the universe; we call this thing God.



blessedinnyc -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/8/2008 7:05:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

It's been over 20 years since college. Looks like I got the term wrong earlier.

From Wikipedia:

The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the seemingly rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals around 530 million years ago, as evidenced by the fossil record.[1][2] This was accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms.1[3] Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organised into colonies. In the following 70 million to 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude,2 and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s.[4]

The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[5] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[6]

The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid evolution; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian rocks.

Article Continues

The Cambrian explosion actually signals an end to a period that scientists call "Snowball Earth" or "Slushball Earth", which lasted from roughly 700 million BC to 550 million BC. It may have been caused by a deviation in earth's seasonal tilt that may have taken us from the current 23.5 degree tilt to 55 degrees. Scientists find evidence for this period in dropstones that receding glaciers left behind as well as the activity of iron-eating organisms that scientists can use to determine oxygen levels in anoxic waters cut off from the atmosphere by glaciers.

So science has an excellent explanation for the Cambrian explosion, but I think a good question to ask is whether we would be here if things had been a little different. Christians who try to answer this question and ask "what are the odds we would have this event" might get somewhere. On the other hand, Christians who look for God's active intervention in earth's evolutionary history or try to use this to prove the earth must be 5700 years old may be disappointed.

quote:

Note the word "most", not all.

Indeed, if I recall correctly, there is some fossil evidence of basic animal life before Snowball Earth.



Jhud -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/8/2008 7:46:12 PM)

quote:

The Cambrian explosion actually signals an end to a period that scientists call "Snowball Earth" or "Slushball Earth", which lasted from roughly 700 million BC to 550 million BC. It may have been caused by a deviation in earth's seasonal tilt that may have taken us from the current 23.5 degree tilt to 55 degrees. Scientists find evidence for this period in dropstones that receding glaciers left behind as well as the activity of iron-eating organisms that scientists can use to determine oxygen levels in anoxic waters cut off from the atmosphere by glaciers.

So science has an excellent explanation for the Cambrian explosion, but I think a good question to ask is whether we would be here if things had been a little different. Christians who try to answer this question and ask "what are the odds we would have this event" might get somewhere. On the other hand, Christians who look for God's active intervention in earth's evolutionary history or try to use this to prove the earth must be 5700 years old may be disappointed.


I am not sure 'higher temperatures' constitutes an 'excellent explanation' for the sudden appearance of every phylum now in existence.



blessedinnyc -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/8/2008 7:53:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I am not sure 'higher temperatures' constitutes an 'excellent explanation' for the sudden appearance of every phylum now in existence.


Mind if I apply the logic in your sentence to something similar?

"I am not sure that 'lower temperatures' constitutes an explanation for the sudden appearance of every species that now resides on the island exactly 20-100 years after the volcano erupted and lava covered the whole island"

Even if I'm wrong here- even if there still is something special about the Cambrian explosion, science will eventually come up with an explanation for it. Since natural history automatically excludes the supernatural, it will simply work around the miracle with a natural model.

Something science can't explain, however, is why pi=3.14159. Or how energy/matter got here. Or how our universe has the constants it has the facilitate the formation of planets orbiting stars. Metaphysics can help answer this question, and I think the answer points towards God.



Jhud -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/8/2008 8:12:44 PM)

quote:

Mind if I apply the logic in your sentence to something similar?

"I am not sure that 'lower temperatures' constitutes an explanation for the sudden appearance of every species that now resides on the island exactly 20-100 years after the volcano erupted and lava covered the whole island"

You can look for God's intervention in natural history in the Cambrian explosion, but even if you find something suprising in all of it, science will come up with an explanation for it, and the "miracle" will evaporate.


Actually, the logic of your example should demonstrate to you the illogic of thinking that warm temperatures have anything to do with the explosion of phyla, body plans, structures and systems. Animals and plants 'appear' on Volcano Island because said animals and plants already exist elsewhere.

Though, in a sense, I agree with you about 'miracles' in as much as one equates miracles with magic - where we differ is that the understanding that the life in the Cambrian required something more than warmth (or time, or any ordinary process). This is not only logical, but necessary.

What it required was the knowledge and intention of a mind. That's pretty straightforward, and certainly reasonable.



Jhud -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/8/2008 8:23:33 PM)

quote:

Even if I'm wrong here- even if there still is something special about the Cambrian explosion, science will eventually come up with an explanation for it. Since natural history automatically excludes the supernatural, it will simply work around the miracle with a natural model.

Something science can't explain, however, is why pi=3.14159. Or how energy/matter got here. Or how our universe has the constants it has the facilitate the formation of planets orbiting stars. Metaphysics can help answer this question, and I think the answer points towards God.


Well, I agree that modern science excludes non-materialistic explanations, but that it does so does not mean there is not evidence for such things, or that they constitute better explanations.

And while I am not sure how pi points towards God (Although if you ever saw the movie Pi, it suggests as much [8|]) I think the universal constants certainly indicate the universe was no accident.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI