Creationists: Here's your chance

[lunamoth]

However, there is a fatal flaw in your argument. Namely, that complexity requires a designer. Now, if god created a complex universe then he would have to be infinity more complex than the universe itself.

So, if complexity requires design, and god is complex....

I see the point you are making (I reject the argument from design and the argument from complexity), but I have never understood how it is concluded that the designer must be more 'complex' than the creation.

Maybe it depends upon what is meant by 'complex?'

 

[lunamoth]

You don't get out much do you?

Do the names John Scopes and Dayton, TN have any meaning for you?

Lol! Well, I do live a sheltered life!

Of course I know this controversy has been around a while.

I really want to know what is taught under the name of creation science. What, precisely, are the teachers to teach?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Lol! Well, I do live a sheltered life!

Of course I know this controversy has been around a while.

I really want to know what is taught under the name of creation science. What, precisely, are the teachers to teach?

A mixture of "Darwin wuz wrong!" and "Goddidit!'. That's about all creation science has to offer.

 

[lunamoth]

A mixture of "Darwin wuz wrong!" and "Goddidit!'. That's about all creation science has to offer.

What was Darwin wrong about?

And, it only takes a few seconds to say that God did it.

I am back reading the posts in the thread, so maybe I will find more as I go...

 

[The_Evelyonian]

What was Darwin wrong about?

And, it only takes a few seconds to say that God did it.

I am back reading the posts in the thread, so maybe I will find more as I go...

Well, according to creation science, Darwin was wrong about everything.

Some popular ideas amongst creation "scientists":

1. People did not evolve from lesser animals.

2. The fossil record was laid down by Noah's flood.

3. God created everything in six literal 24-hour days some 6000 years ago.

4. Dinosaurs and man lived at the same time.

5. If the physical evidence contradicts the Bible then the evidence is wrong.

It's largely stuff like that. A lot of assertion and no real substance.

 

[lunamoth]

Well, according to creation science, Darwin was wrong about everything.

Some popular ideas amongst creation "scientists":

1. People did not evolve from lesser animals.

2. The fossil record was laid down by Noah's flood.

3. God created everything in six literal 24-hour days some 6000 years ago.

4. Dinosaurs and man lived at the same time.

5. If the physical evidence contradicts the Bible then the evidence is wrong.

It's largely stuff like that. A lot of assertion and no real substance.

I'm sure we agree that this is not science. Are you sure that this is what the Creationism Lobby wants science teachers to say?

I thought I was missing something. What is the science part of creation science?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

I'm sure we agree that this is not science. Are you sure that this is what the Creationism Lobby wants science teachers to say?

There's really not much else to it. They want the biblical model of creation taught in the science classroom.

I thought I was missing something. What is the science part of creation science?

A word that they use to make their position sound scientific.

 

[lunamoth]

I did not read all of the posts in this thread, sorry, way too long. I looked at quite a few and did not find anything that amounts to the scientific evidence for creation that could be taught in a science class.

I know only non-theists have addressed my posts so far. If anyone can tell me what exactly is proposed to be taught as creation science (for example, in a 10th grade biology class), other than the list by Evelyonian above, I am sincerely interested.

Thanks.

 

[RedOne77]

I did not read all of the posts in this thread, sorry, way too long. I looked at quite a few and did not find anything that amounts to the scientific evidence for creation that could be taught in a science class.

I know only non-theists have addressed my posts so far. If anyone can tell me what exactly is proposed to be taught as creation science (for example, in a 10th grade biology class), other than the list by Evelyonian above, I am sincerely interested.

Thanks.

Anything science agrees with that doesn't disagree with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Or, the many 'holes' of evolutionary theory. :yes:

Most of what is taught in high school science has little to do with evolution directly. My guess is that fields that don't engage in the origins of life, Earth, universe etc. or talk about things more than 10K years ago will not change.

In short, I don't think there is a set curriculum (or foundation of ideas) for what would be taught in a creation science or ID class at any level beyond kindergarten. They have no positive evidence for there claims, so all their 'evidence' is 'holes' of evolution that themselves are either fraudulent or fail to grasp basic concepts of science. Below is what I think some main points would be in a creation science classroom.

Micro evolution (adaptation) is observed while macro evolution has not been. And make a statement like 'many scientists have serious doubts to the validity of evolution to explain the diversity and complexity of life'.

For certain structures (like the eye) science has no idea how such structures could form naturally and that evolution could not have done such a thing. Similarly, or in conjunction, talk about these structures and systems (like the immune system) in terms of them being irreducibly complex and thus not capable of forming via evolution.

Talk about how incomplete the fossil record is, and no (or too few) transitional fossils have been found after over 150 years of searching.

The Cambrian explosion disproves evolution and is evidence of a creation period, not a slow gradual evolutionary process.

Certain fossils (like Piltdown man showing human evolution) and things like Haeckle's embryos are complete frauds. Java man (group of H. erectus) are all frauds, or how Lucy the A. afarensis is a fraud. Neanderthals are really people with rickets and/or arthritis and not really a separate species.

Edit: Some other points that would probably be made

We have never seen life from non-life in nature or the lab.

No one was there to observe how everything was made. This includes life, the solar system and the universe.

You can't get something from nothing (think big bang).

DNA is a code which indicates it was made by an intelligent agent.

Stress the probabilities of how likely a specific string of DNA forming randomly, showing that it is statistically impossible.

 

[Wotan]

Here's some info for you.
And here.

Also here.
Read be informed(?)

 

[lunamoth]

Anything science agrees with that doesn't disagree with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Or, the many 'holes' of evolutionary theory. :yes:

Most of what is taught in high school science has little to do with evolution directly. My guess is that fields that don't engage in the origins of life, Earth, universe etc. or talk about things more than 10K years ago will not change.

In short, I don't think there is a set curriculum (or foundation of ideas) for what would be taught in a creation science or ID class at any level beyond kindergarten. They have no positive evidence for there claims, so all their 'evidence' is 'holes' of evolution that themselves are either fraudulent or fail to grasp basic concepts of science. Below is what I think some main points would be in a creation science classroom.

Micro evolution (adaptation) is observed while macro evolution has not been. And make a statement like 'many scientists have serious doubts to the validity of evolution to explain the diversity and complexity of life'.

For certain structures (like the eye) science has no idea how such structures could form naturally and that evolution could not have done such a thing. Similarly, or in conjunction, talk about these structures and systems (like the immune system) in terms of them being irreducibly complex and thus not capable of forming via evolution.

Talk about how incomplete the fossil record is, and no (or too few) transitional fossils have been found after over 150 years of searching.

The Cambrian explosion disproves evolution and is evidence of a creation period, not a slow gradual evolutionary process.

Certain fossils (like Piltdown man showing human evolution) and things like Haeckle's embryos are complete frauds. Java man (group of H. erectus) are all frauds, or how Lucy the A. afarensis is a fraud. Neanderthals are really people with rickets and/or arthritis and not really a separate species.

Edit: Some other points that would probably be made

We have never seen life from non-life in nature or the lab.

No one was there to observe how everything was made. This includes life, the solar system and the universe.

You can't get something from nothing (think big bang).

DNA is a code which indicates it was made by an intelligent agent.

Stress the probabilities of how likely a specific string of DNA forming randomly, showing that it is statistically impossible.

Hi RedOne,

Thank you for your reply to my question. From everything I've read, I think (fear) you are right. It's hard to imagine a science teacher teaching any of the above points, most of which are, as you say, fraudulent, misleading, and/or antithetical to science.

Well, maybe the upside is that students will need a pretty good understanding of the ToE and other scientific concepts before they can even consider the above 'holes.'

BTW, here is a nice video that explains how the eye could likely have evolved: Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye.

 

[lunamoth]

Here's some info for you.
And here.

Also here.
Read be informed(?)

No thanks...my head still hurts from looking at macroevo.net.

 

[staffi01]

........

Micro evolution (adaptation) is observed while macro evolution has not been. And make a statement like 'many scientists have serious doubts to the validity of evolution to explain the diversity and complexity of life'.

For certain structures (like the eye) science has no idea how such structures could form naturally and that evolution could not have done such a thing. Similarly, or in conjunction, talk about these structures and systems (like the immune system) in terms of them being irreducibly complex and thus not capable of forming via evolution.

Talk about how incomplete the fossil record is, and no (or too few) transitional fossils have been found after over 150 years of searching.

The Cambrian explosion disproves evolution and is evidence of a creation period, not a slow gradual evolutionary process.

Certain fossils (like Piltdown man showing human evolution) and things like Haeckle's embryos are complete frauds. Java man (group of H. erectus) are all frauds, or how Lucy the A. afarensis is a fraud. Neanderthals are really people with rickets and/or arthritis and not really a separate species.

....

It's nice to see someone take the time to type this out but it could have been summed up in 3 words......."Lies, lies & lies".

Surely America isn't going to remain a super-power for many generations if this is a sign of how they want to educate the kids.

 

[Autodidact]

I did not read all of the posts in this thread, sorry, way too long. I looked at quite a few and did not find anything that amounts to the scientific evidence for creation that could be taught in a science class.

I know only non-theists have addressed my posts so far. If anyone can tell me what exactly is proposed to be taught as creation science (for example, in a 10th grade biology class), other than the list by Evelyonian above, I am sincerely interested.

Thanks.

O.K., well in Biology, I think they would teach that God created each "kind" separately (but we can't define what a "kind" is) and that each kind contained within it the genetic information (but we can't define "information") to generate many different species, and that new species "adapt" (not evolve) from the original kind according to the Darwinian model.

The key concept is discontinuity--that there is no real link between two different kinds, such as deer and horses. Any similarity is a result of God adapting a similar plan.

Also, the complex ways that parts of living creatures function and work together is clear evidence of design.

Stuff like that.

I think that's what they would be teaching in Biology if we let them.

 

[mandapos]

Take, for example, the eye; What do the evolutionists think that the eye was, before it became an eye. God created all things. All life was created first and then told to reproduce. (Gen 1:21-22)

 

[Gunfingers]

That's not evidence for creationism, it's simply an attempt to find something that evolutionary theory can't explain, so it doesn't really fit in this thread. Plus evolutionary theory can explain it.

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That said, since we're on the subject, if you have any other systems that you feel are irreducibly complex feel free to ask and we will explain them.

Actually. we should make a thread for that...

 

[The_Evelyonian]

God created all things. All life was created first and then told to reproduce. (Gen 1:21-22)

From the opening post:

2) Scripture by itself is not evidence. You can use it to help make your case (I.E. the bible says the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old and here is evidence that it really is...) but your argument cannot stand if it is based solely on a holy book.

...

4) Bald assertion (I.E. the world itself is evidence) doesn't cut it. The evidence you provide must be tangible.

 

[Autodidact]

Take, for example, the eye; What do the evolutionists think that the eye was, before it became an eye. God created all things. All life was created first and then told to reproduce. (Gen 1:21-22)

You're in the wrong thread. This one is for evidence in favor of your hypothesis. It might help if you first state what your hypothesis is.

But here is an article that explains the evolution of the eye.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Take, for example, the eye; What do the evolutionists think that the eye was, before it became an eye. God created all things. All life was created first and then told to reproduce. (Gen 1:21-22)

Well, Biologists will tell you that single celled Dinoflagellates have an "eye" that can sense light. Or that starfish, with their eyecups of light sensing cells can accurately detect the direction light is coming from.
As for the human eye, it is in fact one of the poorer developed vision organs in the animal world. Our eyes only see three colors, while some fish can see five. Unlike some animals, we can see niether ultraviolet nor infrared. And our distance range is much more limited than that of other animals.
While Creationists love to quote mine Darwin with...
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree...."

they quite dishonestly leave out the rest of the paragraph....

"...When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Not to mention that, as Darwin predicted, (a necessity for a theory in the scientific method), it has been shown that the eye has developed over the course of millions of years from simple light sensing cells such as those found in the starfish to the myriad of vision organs found in the animal kingdom today.

 

[painted wolf]

wa:do