education of evolution vs. creationism

Originally posted by twhitehead
Be careful not to confuse The Theory of Evolution and 'evolution'. They are not the same thing. Evolution is a simple and obvious fact, almost by definition.
As for your claims about mathematical impossibilities, the reason he is not aware of them is probably because they have not been published. In fact I have never heard of that before, maybe you could enlighten us or provide references?

A few to consider.

Discussion Note: Indeterminism, Probability, and Randomness in Evolutionary Theory
Alex Rosenberg
Philosophy of Science, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Dec., 2001), pp. 536-544

This one declares the issue moot, owing to the need to first verify which order of probability ought to be used:

http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=24674

And, as usual, the Internet affords the opportunity to find adherents on both sides of the aisle declaring iron-clad confirmation of their tightly-held beliefs... similar to you and me.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm using the common words of many in this discussion, "small
changes" just happens to be one of them. I'm in agreement too that
simply the size of the change may be small, it doesn't mean the
effect it has is, it is also one of my pet complaints about the whole
process taking life from a single cell to the variety we see today.
With all the pit falls ...[text shortened]... ere involved in the forming of
life even with natural selection as a filter for it.
Kelly

So.....which is it?

"I don't have an issue one with small changes if that is what you
think evolution is fine, but when you promote those small changes
can do more than just small changes that is another level of change
all together."

...or...

"I'm in agreement too that
simply the size of the change may be small, it doesn't mean the
effect it has is..."

You can't believe both of these things at once. Either you believe small genetic changes can have large effects (particularly when lots of these small genetic changes accumulate over a long period of time in a controlled way) or not.

"...it is also one of my pet complaints about the whole
process taking life from a single cell to the variety we see today."

Evolution didn't take life from a single cell to the explosion of variety we see today. The variety of life today comes from a rich variety of self-replicating molecules, each one of which is far, far away from life. The cell is a significant milestone in this progression, but by no means the beginning.

"...is a compelling reason to think
more than just random mutations were involved in the forming of
life..."

You place too much importance on randomness in the process. A process is not random just because it has random elements comprising it. And it is also true that just because a process is natural doesn't mean it is chiefly random--another common misconception in this debate entertained on both sides. In fact, nature is very often not at all random...look at the elegant equations that describe many fundamental aspects of nature and you'll have to agree with this, if nothing else I've said.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Just as looking at a car driving down the road doing 75 mph does not
tell us where the car was 3 hours ago

But there maybe lots of evidence to help us make very accurate predictions where the car was 3 hours ago.

The type of car might narrow down the type of terrain it was capable of travelling on, for example in Australia there are many roads which traverse the desert...... some of these roads are very long, also at the most there may only be 2 or 3 possible directions they could have come from.

If we know the type of car, we could estimate the fuel efficiency, with confidence intervals. Couple this with knowledge of when the driver last refuelled i.e. via a fuel receipt left in the car, again it gives some evidence how far the driver may have come in that time.

Also the receipt (if present) will give us a location the driver was at a given time, allowing us to extrapolate forwards or back from this. Obvisouly this could come from a multitude of sources.

How about the fuel content of the car - if its an Ethanol blend maybe it has a unique signature to match fuel to service station. Maybe even standard fuels have a chemical signature?

How about the stomach content of the driver - it could show us their last meal which could help show when they last ate and where possibly they could have sourced that meal.

Soil between the tyre treads could be unique to different areas.

Pollen on the car or driver maybe unique.

Maybe a road trip plan in the car.

A licence plate to help us establish where the driver lives.

Red light cameras may have identified the car.

Cops may have issued tickets.

What if the driver hit something or left rubber on the road from wheel spinning or heavy breaking.

These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure there would be loads more.........

So even by using your own example, do you agree that we can get accurate pictures of the past using independent evidence, despite not witnessing the actual event????????

Originally posted by KellyJay
I’m not at all suggesting evolution shouldn’t be taught in public
schools, as I’m not opposed to creation and ID being taught there
either. As a creationist I believe both the evolutionist and the ID
people attempt to do the same thing with much of the same
evidence. Both have a point of view and attempt to use DNA and other
things to get others to see ...[text shortened]... other take on the
matter not scientific. I think that is laughable, but that is just me.
Kelly

I’m not at all suggesting evolution shouldn’t be taught in public
schools, as I’m not opposed to creation and ID being taught there
either.

If you are arguing that evolution theory does not meet the standard of a scientific theory, then you are arguing evolution theory shouldn't be taught in public school science classrooms.

If you are arguing that ID (creationism, same thing) is just as valid a scientific theory, then you are arguing that creationism should be taught in public school science classrooms.

(Quick tip: instead of saying what you are not arguing for, why not clear things up by stating what you are arguing for?)

It won't surprise you that I think your characterization of this debate is completely wrong. This debate isn't about interpreting data or making arguments. It cuts to the core of the very definition of science.

If you (correctly) believe that scientific theories and the scientific method exist to help humans make reliable predictions, then you logically cannot accept that creationism is science. Evolution theory allows us to make reliable, useful predictions. As we continue developing the theory, the power and usefulness of these predictions could cure disease, lessen suffering, extend lives, increase comfort, etc. In short, knowledge and understanding is good.

Intelligent design, or creationism, or whatever you care to call it doesn't allow anyone to make a single meaningful prediction or understand a single solitary thing about the universe. It is not science. It is politics. It is the politics of morality that creationists like you want to play out in public school science classrooms. It's effectively an attempt to use my tax dollars to convert public school kids to believe in your moralistic precepts. It is arrogant, it is presumptuous, and it is ethically abominable by the social contract behind the foundation of the US and probably even by your own stated moral standards (so add hypocritical to the list).

Please understand that I'm talking about either of the arguments put forth by most creationists--not creationists themselves. I think most god-fearing people are decent, and I think most that advance either of the above crazy arguments do so unwittingly without realizing exactly the damage they're promoting. From your statements above it's clear to me that you are most likely a good person that just needs to think a little more critically about this issue and try to understand the consequences of the agenda you're promoting. But do try to get that it's nothing less than undermining all science and scientific pursuits, the crown jewel in the history of the advancement of the human race.

Originally posted by severoon
So.....which is it?

"I don't have an issue one with small changes if that is what you
think evolution is fine, but when you promote those small changes
can do more than just small changes that is another level of change
all together."

...or...

"I'm in agreement too that
simply the size of the change may be small, it doesn't mean the
effect it ...[text shortened]... aspects of nature and you'll have to agree with this, if nothing else I've said.

I suggest you read the threads in question and see the context of my
posts were speaking about two different things.
Kelly

Originally posted by severoon
[b]I’m not at all suggesting evolution shouldn’t be taught in public
schools, as I’m not opposed to creation and ID being taught there
either.

If you are arguing that evolution theory does not meet the standard of a scientific theory, then you are arguing evolution theory shouldn't be taught in public school science classrooms.

If you are arguin ...[text shortened]... entific pursuits, the crown jewel in the history of the advancement of the human race.[/b]

What I'm suggesting is that I think all three can and should be
taught in school, you can call one science and the others something
else as far as I'm concern does not matter to me.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What I'm suggesting is that I think all three can and should be
taught in school, you can call one science and the others something
else as far as I'm concern does not matter to me.
Kelly

I'm and atheist and actually agree with KJ, as long as there is a clear seperation.... ie creation and ID should never be taught in science classes.

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]Previous post concerning your car analogy

I'd also appreciate a response regarding my reply to your car analogy, and what we can learn by combining independent sources of evidence.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
A few to consider.

Discussion Note: Indeterminism, Probability, and Randomness in Evolutionary Theory
Alex Rosenberg
Philosophy of Science, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Dec., 2001), pp. 536-544

Clearly not much use to me as I don't have access to it.

This one declares the issue moot, owing to the need to first verify which order of probability ought to be used:

http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=24674

And, as usual, the Internet affords the opportunity to find adherents on both sides of the aisle declaring iron-clad confirmation of their tightly-held beliefs... similar to you and me.
So the only reference you provide that I can actually check does not agree with your claim? I guess, we will just have to assume you were using your usual "shed doubt on it but don't back up the lies" tactic.

Originally posted by timebombted
I'd also appreciate a response regarding my reply to your car analogy, and what we can learn by combining independent sources of evidence.

I'm sorry I'll go back and look for it. I get caught up in more than
a few posts and from time to time lose one or two.
Kelly

Originally posted by timebombted
But there maybe lots of evidence to help us make very accurate predictions where the car was 3 hours ago.

The type of car might narrow down the type of terrain it was capable of travelling on, for example in Australia there are many roads which traverse the desert...... some of these roads are very long, also at the most there may only be 2 or 3 possi ictures of the past using independent evidence, despite not witnessing the actual event????????

Yes, the more informaiton you have the better the odds of finding out
where it was, a very valid point indeed. As I was pointing out, just
seeing the current rate of something does not at all tell us much, we
need a lot more, and the lot more, as all of your examples were need
to be valid points that have something to do with the quesiton at
hand.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What I'm suggesting is that I think all three can and should be
taught in school, you can call one science and the others something
else as far as I'm concern does not matter to me.
Kelly

Evolution can and should be taught as science and creationism/ID can be taught in RE.

You have not answered twice now; 'If the genes that do not reproduce are not lost there is no selection, and hence no change in the genepool, and no evolution. Do you understand that?'

Originally posted by KellyJay
What I'm suggesting is that I think all three can and should be
taught in school, you can call one science and the others something
else as far as I'm concern does not matter to me.
Kelly

Why do you think creation and ID should be taught in school? Do you also think that creation stories from all known religions should also be taught? Or do you think that each student should be taught the stories from his/her own religion?
Should other scientific hypotheses that have been proved to either be false or without merit also be taught in schools? Should we for example teach that the earth is flat, or talk about some of the more famous perpetual motion machines?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Clearly not much use to me as I don't have access to it.

[b]This one declares the issue moot, owing to the need to first verify which order of probability ought to be used:

http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=24674

And, as usual, the Internet affords the opportunity to find adherents on both sides of the aisle declaring ir ...[text shortened]... ve to assume you were using your usual "shed doubt on it but don't back up the lies" tactic.

The internet is not the sole (or final) arbiter of truth, thus my inclusion of something published via other means.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The internet is not the sole (or final) arbiter of truth, thus my inclusion of something published via other means.

I didn't claim it was. However, you posted two sources, one of which you know I cannot check, and you did not quote it for my benefit, the other did not support your opinion.

My conclusion is that you are unable to support your claim.