Berkeley.edu/evolibrary is a favorite site of mine when it comes to teaching the basics about evolution.
Its simplified explanations strip science of its jargon and attempt to explain things in plain English.
Welcome to Evolution 101!
I quote from it quite a bit.
Here is a small example about macro-evolution....
"Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.
It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.
Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.
The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.
"
Reading through that the average science student would assume that this is all based on real evidence for "macro" changes in species that lead to the transformation, over millions of years, and billions of living things, into completely new organisms....but read the following portions from an ID perspective and you will see what I mean....
"Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life."
Use of the word "generally" is not a substitute for the word "specifically", is it?
And what do evolutionists "see" when they "look at the large-scale history of life."? They see only what they are trained to see. The "large scale history of life" is actually shrouded in the mists of time.
Because there are "no firsthand accounts to read", what do scientists do? They "reconstruct" the history of life as they believe it happened. All "the available evidence" is really only dependent on how science interprets that evidence. ID can give it a completely different interpretation that to us is just as valid. Who says science HAS to be correct? Who put science on that pedestal? Wasn't it humans?
"Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened."
So, do you see the problem here? They have a scenario into which all things must fit. They can, by their interpretation, MAKE them fit...very conveniently. Their diagrams and illustrations are all the "proof" they need.
Using the mechanisms that make adaptation possible, they conflate the data to make it appear as if macro-evolution is just a continuation of adaptation....(they even call adaptation "microevolution" so that the suggestion about it carrying on to bigger and better things is more believable) The problem is, they do not have a single substantive piece of evidence that such a continuation is even possible. Its pure educated guesswork.....nothing more.
"The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time."
They cannot say that honestly because they are only assuming that this "can" happen. This is based on the assumption that if a little can do this...then a lot must do more....and yet there is no real evidence to substantiate this assumption.....no matter how much time elapses. No creature is seen to step out of its own taxonomic family.
The world of science is not quite as knowledgeable as it makes itself out to be. And realities are completely dependent upon what "reality" one subscribes to. If there can be only one, then a lot of people are going to be very disappointed.
I guess this is my biggest gripe. Absolute proof of either scenario is missing. So how does science take the high ground and commandeer the topic like it is somehow superior? How do they teach "facts" to students that they do not have? Assumptions are not facts. "Might have" or "could have" is not the language of science, but the language of conjecture....which is what a "theory" really is.
Destroying God and stifling spirituality without just cause is not beneficial to anyone IMO.
Has godless evolution enhanced the lives of today's youth? Has it created awareness of the more moral concepts that kept us from degrading into what former civilizations fell into...like the Canaanites or the Romans? Where is the moral climate of the world of today headed? It looks like its is on a serious downward spiral to me.
By all means teach kids what science knows for a "fact".....but don't teach them things that science "assumes" as if it is beyond question. Its an unsubstantiated theory...unproven and unprovable. Teach them that.
And that in itself is another problem. Corroboration can sometimes come about because of peer pressure, rather than what specific findings indicate. Scientists belong to the same club by and large, so don't expect anyone to break ranks who still wants any credibility....or a job.
And don't get me started about peer review.....what a joke.
"Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away. Famously, it is compared with democracy: a system full of problems but the least worst we have."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
False religion is just as bad as false science. Neither will prove vindicated in the end IMO.
But for those who have never had the one true God of the Bible in their lives, it is a waste of time trying to explain. Yet once you have experienced his hand in your life.....there is no one who can convince a true believer that he is a figment of their imagination.He and his creation are our reality.
Deeje...... I'll try to just express a few ideas, since you've covered a lot more territory than I can handle......
"I guess this is my biggest gripe. Absolute proof of either scenario is missing. So how does science take the high ground and commandeer the topic like it is somehow superior? How do they teach "facts" to students that they do not have? Assumptions are not facts. "Might have" or "could have" is not the language of science, but the language of conjecture....which is what a "theory" really is.
Destroying God and stifling spirituality without just cause is not beneficial to anyone IMO.
Has godless evolution enhanced the lives of today's youth? Has it created awareness of the more moral concepts that kept us from degrading into what former civilizations fell into...like the Canaanites or the Romans? Where is the moral climate of the world of today headed? It looks like its is on a serious downward spiral to me.
To my mind, it looks like you've reduced it to a choice between reality and non-reality. Yes, non-reality is exciting and fun, but evolution is the only game in town for those who are concerned with reality, otherwise there are no limits or bounds. And I would suggest that you likely have little idea what the Canaanites did or didn't do to deserve an alleged genocide. Wasn't it a Christian god who created humans and then had to kill them all in a flood because he created all misfits? I think it's all about finding out what it is that all people can agree upon, and not kill each other over. Something such as reality......
I guess time will tell.
