Creationism vs. Evolution

[Yusuf]

Natural Selection is based on the observation that there is variation among individuals in a population. Natural selection states that those individuals which posses some advantage in the environment (such as being a faster runner) are more likely to leave more offspring, thereby increasing the probability of passing the advantage on to future generations.

Natural Selection is what "retains" the occasional positive mutation and causes the population to "advance" is some way. Creationists note that this mechanism can only "select" among already existing traits - it cannot create something new. This is not general evolution, it is Variation. Animals, such as birds, living in different places may have different beaks or feathers, but they cannot evolve into a new species.

Sadly, this is being taught as Evolution to children in schools.

[gallo]

Quote by: Yusuf Natural Selection is based on the observation that there is variation among individuals in a population. Natural selection states that those individuals which posses some advantage in the environment (such as being a faster runner) are more likely to leave more offspring, thereby increasing the probability of passing the advantage on to future generations.

There's more to it than that.
[left]

1. All organisms produce so many offspring that population size would increase exponentially if not constrained, and yet, adult populations remain relatively constant.

2. In any environment there exists a limited number of resources. As a result, all organisms must be engaged in a constant competition to acquire these limited resources for themselves in order to survive.

3. There exists in any population great variability such that no two individuals are exactly the same. Among the variable characteristics that all species have, some organisms have heritable characteristics that make them better able (or less able) than others to acquire the resources necessary for life.

4.Those organisms that are better able to acquire the necessary resources are more likely to reach maturity and to pass those heritable characteristics on to their progeny, while those organisms that are at a disadvantage will tend to reproduce less (differential reproduction).

As a result, populations change over time.

[/left]

Quote by: Yusuf Natural Selection is what "retains" the occasional positive mutation and causes the population to "advance" is some way.

No. Really bad choice of wording. Populations change. It is typical of creationists to misrepresent the theory of evolution by trying to introduce the idea of progress and advancement. It is also either dishonest or ignorant.

Quote by: Yusuf Creationists note that this mechanism can only "select" among already existing traits - it cannot create something new.

Right. It is typical of creationists to try to fracture evolutionary theory in order to isolate observed mechanisms. That way they can ignore the supporting mechanisms and pretend that each mechanism acts in isolation and must be shown to be responsible for all change by itself. The problem is that no evolutionary biologist ever claimed that natural selection was solely responsible for evolution. Evolution is the result of a conbination of the actions of several mechanisms, some that tene to increase genetic diversity and some that tend to reduce it.

Quote by: Yusuf This is not general evolution, it is Variation. Animals, such as birds, living in different places may have different beaks or feathers, but they cannot evolve into a new species.

Nope. It's evolution, because not only can they evolve into new species, they have been observed to have done so. Nice attempt to pretend that no mechanisms exist that can increase the genetic diversity in a population. In other words, there is an observed mechanism that can (and does) create new traits the selection acts on.

A good place to learn the basics of evolutionary theory should spend some time at the Understanding Evolution web site from The University of California Museum of Paleontology.

Quote by: Yusuf Sadly, this is being taught as Evolution to children in schools.

Not in my experience. If you are correct, why are creationists so upset? Clearly there is nothing in your distorted representation of evolutionary theory that is in any way in conflict with the modern version of creationism as it has evolved in the last several years. Once creationists finally realized that the idea that two of all kinds of animals could be crammed into a box was nonsense, they accepted evolution. So now the idea of 36 species of cat from a single pair, or 28 species of canid from a single pair in only a few years is acceptable for creationists. They like to misrepresent it by calling it "variation in kind" rather than what it really is; hyper-evolution at rates that make evolutionary biologists dizzy.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Capitalist Pig Creationism vs. Evolution I'm curious about where the pool is divided on this sensitive issue, so I decided to add a little air to the fire and see where it goes. My position, as an acolyte of the science of biology, is that the best explanation for the origin of species lies within the vast pools of evidence that have been accumulated over hundreds of years in support of evolution. On the other hand, Biblical Creationism is but a fiction conceived in the minds of the disillusioned. Proponents of Creationism carefully beguile their victims with equivocal language, pseudoscientific sophism, and occassionally outright lies, in order to "prove" a "theory" which makes no testable predictions and lacks any sufficent mechanism by which it operates.

Neither Theology-based Nor Science and Technology-based "exhibits" can prove or deny any data on Mankind creation and/or evolution, since we have no crucial data on :
- Mankind's Genesis

No one has that information, except for speculations, theories, assumptions, views, opinions, ect.
What am I to debate, not having the fundamental data that stands for Mankind's Genesis ?

[Plasma Snake[D]]

Science kind of opens a big unknown that people are not ready to face. We shouldnt criticize those that are religiously narrow minded.

[strawberijam518]

This is a letter to the editor of a local newspaper one of my friends wrote...

If you wish to reply directly to me about this, please PM me....frankly, I'm sick of trying to follow this thread and haven't enough time to read the whole thing.

-------------------------------
Begin with the earth and a few inert ingredients (compliments of a fortunate big bang), add oceans of water (also complimentary), add time (billions of years), add faith (quantum leaps) stirred by the omniscient hand of Natural Selection and the recipe for the first “simple cell” is complete.

Allowed a few more billion years of random coincidence and sequential mutation the single cell becomes a sophisticated amphibian, perhaps a frog. Billions more years and amphibians become complex humans.

Still some simpletons observe man’s complexity and design and attribute it to an intelligent designer.

Federal Judge John Jones decided that Intelligent Design was not really science, at least not in the public schools of Dover, PA. He dismissed the testimony of credible microbiologists Michael Behe, Scott Minnich and others as worthless. After all, they admitted that Intelligent Design presumed an Intelligent Designer. Smart judges know that if God has anything to do with it, it’s not science and Jones didn’t hesitate to say so frequently in his long-winded 139-page ruling.

Jones relied on ”scientists” and “credible free thinkers” like the ACLU, Dr. Barbara Forrest, Professor of Philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University, and others. Visit Fayard Hall on the SLU campus and notice the flyers advertising Forrest’s Philosophy 314 class, “Evolution – It’s History & Principles**.” The double asterisk note reads, “** This course will not debate the status of evolutionary theory. Evolution is the only established scientific explanation of the history of life on earth. The course will be based on acceptance of this explanation.” Forrest knows how difficult it is to rationally sell evolution. It’s easier to demand lock-step acceptance.

In effect, Jones determines that belief in designed humans is belief in a religious fairy tale. On the contrary, belief there was once a frog who after a few billion years of evolution became a handsome prince constitutes irrefutable science.

Neither ID nor Evolution can be proven or repeated in a laboratory environment. Both require faith to accept. Jones builds a “Wall of Protection” around evolution insuring that it remains the only federally mandated and federally funded religion taught in the nation’s public schools, allowing Evolution to proclaim, “Thou shall have no other theories before me!”

This case is not a matter of whether religion will be taught, rather whose religion will be taught. Somehow Jones failed to mention that Forrest has strong religious motives of her own. As reported by David Klinghoffer in National Review, “Professor Forrest has definite beliefs about religion, evident from the fact that she serves on the board of directors of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, which is ‘an affiliate of American Atheists, and [a] member of the Atheist Alliance International,’ according to the group’s website.”
--------------------------------------

enjoy!

-Maddie

[RickSp]

Quote by: strawberijam518 Neither ID nor Evolution can be proven or repeated in a laboratory environment. Both require faith to accept.

Repeating this nonsense doesn't make it any more true. Evolution, in all its myriad forms and manifestations, has been "proven" scientifically thousands and thousands of times. All that is required for this proof is that the evidence agrees with the theory and that the agreement is repeatable. As evolutionary theory unlies all modern biology and geology, the suggestion that it is an article faith is pretty silly.

ID on the other hand is, as has been said many times before, just creationism in a cheap suit.

All that I ask of my kid's school is that they teach science in science class. It doesn't seem too much to ask.

[strawberijam518]

Quote by: RickSp Repeating this nonsense doesn't make it any more true. Evolution, in all its myriad forms and manifestations, has been "proven" scientifically thousands and thousands of times. All that is required for this proof is that the evidence agrees with the theory and that the agreement is repeatable. As evolutionary theory unlies all modern biology and geology, the suggestion that it is an article faith is pretty silly. ID on the other hand is, as has been said many times before, just creationism in a cheap suit. All that I ask of my kid's school is that they teach science in science class. It doesn't seem too much to ask.

Please, I'd like examples of this so called proof that evolution has. I have yet to see any of that.

[Jack]

Perhaps you should start your education by reading this site.

[gallo]

Quote by: strawberijam518 This is a letter to the editor of a local newspaper one of my friends wrote... If you wish to reply directly to me about this, please PM me....frankly, I'm sick of trying to follow this thread and haven't enough time to read the whole thing.

Somehow creationists never do have the time to actually defend the crap that they post by offering actual evidence. Instead we get emotional, scientifically illiterate claptrap like the following letter.

Quote by: strawberijam518 Begin with the earth and a few inert ingredients (compliments of a fortunate big bang), add oceans of water (also complimentary), add time (billions of years), add faith (quantum leaps) stirred by the omniscient hand of Natural Selection and the recipe for the first “simple cell” is complete.

See what I mean? The theories about the origins of the universe, the solar system, and the earth are based on observational evidence. Natural selection (note that it is not necessary to capitalize scientific theories since they are not gods) is only one of several mechanisms of evolution, all of which have been observed and verified by experimental science.

Quote by: strawberijam518 Allowed a few more billion years of random coincidence and sequential mutation the single cell becomes a sophisticated amphibian, perhaps a frog. Billions more years and amphibians become complex humans.

What, exactly, is a "sequential mutation?" Yet another example of emotional, scientifically illiterate claptrap. But I think that it is done intentionally in order to deceive. In the paragraph above the author represents natural selection as the end all of evolution. In this paragraph he represents mutation as the sole driving force of evolution. Is that ignorance or dishonesty?

Quote by: strawberijam518 Still some simpletons observe man’s complexity and design and attribute it to an intelligent designer.

Well, OK. If you want. Such honesty is rarely encountered from IDiots. Nevertheless, attributions of complexity and design are not science. Thus, they should not be presented in science class. Perhaps you could make a case for classes on comparative religion or mythology.

Quote by: strawberijam518 Federal Judge John Jones decided that Intelligent Design was not really science, at least not in the public schools of Dover, PA.

Since the defendant was unable to support any claims that ID is science, Judge Jones found that it wasn't. His decision is binding in the Middle District of the State of Pennsylvania until/unless reversed by a higher court. It may be cited as a precedent in other similar cases across the country.

Quote by: strawberijam518 He dismissed the testimony of credible microbiologists Michael Behe, Scott Minnich and others as worthless.

He did no such thing. He heard their testimony and considered it. In fact, he discusses it in his decision.

Quote by: strawberijam518 After all, they admitted that Intelligent Design presumed an Intelligent Designer.

Right. Therefore it is not science by definition. In science, one may not presume the conclusion before the evidence is examined.

Quote by: strawberijam518 Smart judges know that if God has anything to do with it, it’s not science and Jones didn’t hesitate to say so frequently in his long-winded 139-page ruling.

If you think that Judge Jones' decision is long winded, then I guess you haven't ever attended a service at a christian church. And of course, your god is not a subject of examination by science. Science is naturalistic - it can only examine what can be quantified by our senses. The supernatural is not naturalistic. Unless you think that your god is limited by the same laws that constrain all of nature, and unless you can quantify your god, he is not subject to the study of science. Therefore, your god may not be presented as science in public schools.

Quote by: strawberijam518 Jones relied on ”scientists” and “credible free thinkers” like the ACLU, Dr. Barbara Forrest, Professor of Philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University, and others. Visit Fayard Hall on the SLU campus and notice the flyers advertising Forrest’s Philosophy 314 class, “Evolution – It’s History & Principles**.” The double asterisk note reads, “** This course will not debate the status of evolutionary theory. Evolution is the only established scientific explanation of the history of life on earth. The course will be based on acceptance of this explanation.” Forrest knows how difficult it is to rationally sell evolution. It’s easier to demand lock-step acceptance.

Right. And Judge Jones also relied on the testimony of "scientists" and "lock-step religious thinkers" like microbiologists Michael Behe, John Angus Campbell (refused to depose and declined to testify), Dick M. Carpenter II (deposed but refused to testify), William Dembski (refused to depose and declined to testify), Scott Minnich, Warren A. Nord (deposed but delcined to testify), Steve Fuller, and Stephen Meyer (refused to depose and declined to testify). Judge Jones actually read all of the depositions and listened to all of the testimony. (In fact, that is why he caught a member of the school board in a lie.)

And of course you would have no objection to anyone showing up at your church and arguing that Jesus never existed, would you? Or that there were no Adam and Eve. No Noah and no flood. If that presents a problem for you, then why do you object to Dr. Forrest defining the parameters of a university course? If you don't like the subject matter, then don't take the course. The concept is really quite simple. Religious fundamentalists should not attend college.

Quote by: strawberijam518 In effect, Jones determines that belief in designed humans is belief in a religious fairy tale.

That's not true. He found that a belief in intelligent design was not scientific and therefore should not be presented as science in public school science classes. He did find that ID creationism is religiously motivated and therefore the teaching of same would violate the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

Quote by: strawberijam518 On the contrary, belief there was once a frog who after a few billion years of evolution became a handsome prince constitutes irrefutable science.

I've never heard that. Can you please cite references?

Quote by: strawberijam518 Neither ID nor Evolution can be proven or repeated in a laboratory environment.

Actually, that's not true. Proof is a matter of law, logic, and booze. Science doesn't prove - it explains. Only scientific illiterates talk about science proving something. Of course, ID doesn't explain anything, has no predictive value, and cannot be tested. That is why evolution is science - it explains, predicts, and has been tested. Evolution has been repeated in a laboratory many times. Only the ignorant claim otherwise.

Quote by: strawberijam518 Both require faith to accept.

Claptrap! Another attempt to lower science to the level of religion. "They are both faith." Science is based on evidence. Faith is not. Isn't it sad that creationists always wish to represent their faith as science or to lower science to the level of their faith? Creationists practice bad science and have weak faith.

Quote by: strawberijam518 Jones builds a “Wall of Protection” around evolution insuring that it remains the only federally mandated and federally funded religion taught in the nation’s public schools, allowing Evolution to proclaim, “Thou shall have no other theories before me!”

Claptrap. The "Wall of Protection" was coined by Thomas Jefferson in his explanation of the 1st Amendment (to Baptists, by the way). The 1st Amendment guarantees that our government may not favor one religion over another. And since science is not a religion, it can be taught in classes of science. However, ID creationism, since it was revealed to be religious in nature, cannot be presented as science.

Quote by: strawberijam518 This case is not a matter of whether religion will be taught, rather whose religion will be taught.

Claptrap! The case is a matter of you and like thinkers trying to impose your relilgion as science in public schools. Please show that your religion is science (and therefore your faith is weak) or that science is religion. Give us something other than whinning.

Quote by: strawberijam518 Somehow Jones failed to mention that Forrest has strong religious motives of her own. As reported by David Klinghoffer in National Review, “Professor Forrest has definite beliefs about religion, evident from the fact that she serves on the board of directors of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, which is ‘an affiliate of American Atheists, and [a] member of the Atheist Alliance International,’ according to the group’s website.”

So what? And you and the author of the piece and all of the defence witnesses don't have definite beliefs about religion? How are those beliefs relevant to science? Why should your beliefs about religion be presented as science?

[whydoumockme]

I have a question?.....where does it say or it is proven that creationism and evolution don't go hand in hand with explaining our existence......I’ve studied evolution and the bible.....I wonder, in the bible it says one day in heaven is a thousand years on earth...I believe that because the knowledge of time was a little less then it is now that they really meant a million years......I know that "humans" have been on this earth a little over 7 million years and around 2.5 million years ago "humans" underwent a "mutation" that brought about bigger brains and all that stuff......what I don't get is why when it says in the bible that God molded man out of clay (dirt from the earth, which we are proven to be made out of) that this process didn't take millions of years.....I personally don't believe that we just poofed out of thin air....but that God molded us over along period of time into what we are now….why couldn’t this process of “evolution” be God “molding” his perfect creation……I know after I post this people will find flaws in my idea…..but I believe that we’ll never find the answer because God doesn’t want us to…..if we were to find all the answers to our questions then there will be no need for him……then he’ll be lonely….so I don’t believe that my little idea explains much…..but it’s just an idea

[rez]

Quote by: whydoumockme I’ve studied evolution and the bible.....I wonder, in the bible it says one day in heaven is a thousand years on earth...I believe that because the knowledge of time was a little less then it is now that they really meant a million years......

Quote by: dthmstr254 literally means that unless it says that it is metaphorical or symbological, it is literally true.

as you can see there is no room for your own interpertations - you must take every word in the bible literally....

[Agur]

Quote by: Isherwood Perhaps you should start your education by reading this site.

I can't find any definition of "creationism" on that site. I would have expected better from a scientist, unless, of course, the omission is intended.

Quote by: Wikipedia on "evolution" In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation. Its action over large stretches of time explains the origin of new species and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world. Contemporary species are related to each other through common descent, products of evolution and speciation over billions of years.

Quote by: Wikipedia on "creationism" Creationism can also refer to origin beliefs in general, or to an alternative of traducianism. .... In Abrahamic religions, creationism or creation theology is the origin belief that humans, life, the Earth, and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity's supernatural intervention. The intervention may be seen either as an act of creation from nothing (ex nihilo) or the emergence of order from pre-existing chaos.

There is no need for "evolutionists" to wage war against creationism. You can believe both!

.

[Matt W]

Quote by: whydoumockme I have a question?.....where does it say or it is proven that creationism and evolution don't go hand in hand with explaining our existence......I’ve studied evolution and the bible.....I wonder, in the bible it says one day in heaven is a thousand years on earth...I believe that because the knowledge of time was a little less then it is now that they really meant a million years......I know that "humans" have been on this earth a little over 7 million years and around 2.5 million years ago "humans" underwent a "mutation" that brought about bigger brains and all that stuff......what I don't get is why when it says in the bible that God molded man out of clay (dirt from the earth, which we are proven to be made out of) that this process didn't take millions of years.....I personally don't believe that we just poofed out of thin air....but that God molded us over along period of time into what we are now….why couldn’t this process of “evolution” be God “molding” his perfect creation……I know after I post this people will find flaws in my idea…..but I believe that we’ll never find the answer because God doesn’t want us to…..if we were to find all the answers to our questions then there will be no need for him……then he’ll be lonely….so I don’t believe that my little idea explains much…..but it’s just an idea

I think you might want to read the judges' verdict on Intelligent Design a couple of months back, don't you?

[RickSp]

Quote by: strawberijam518 Please, I'd like examples of this so called proof that evolution has. I have yet to see any of that.

You might want to start here.
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

[gallo]

Quote by: Agur There is no need for "evolutionists" to wage war against creationism. You can believe both!

Actually, "evolutionists" aren't waging war against creationism. That's one of the big problems. Scientists in this country are for the most part unconcerned with fundamentalist mythology and the intentional ignorance of those who claim that the universe and the earth is only 6000 years old, that it was all poofed into being in six days, that there was a global flood 4500 years ago that covered the mountains, and the like. People can choose to believe that if they wish. That is up to them.

The problem is that these sorts have been trying to push science out of science classes and replace it with their claptrap for years. Since the courts threw out laws that banned teaching science in science classes, these religious zealots have tried to make their mythology sound scientific. There was a movement about "creation science," which was invented for the sole purpose of dressing religious dogma in scientific sounding words in order to sneak it into public school science classes. The latest movement is ID - somehow, when we don't have the knowledge to explain the minutia of every observation, we should give up and proclaim that some unknown, supernatural being designed it all. That movement, which has been around for about 10 years now, is now beginning to lose court cases.

You might have noticed that while science has constantly been conducting the process of learning new things about our universe, and publishing the research, "creation science" and ID creationism haven't published anything that could remotely qualify as science.

Sadly, the attack is from the fundamentalist religionists against science. Sadly, most of those being attacked don't even seem to be aware of it. There is no war against creationism. The war is one of defense by science against the war waged by creationists.

[northtexan]

Quote by: Yusuf Natural Selection is based on the observation that there is variation among individuals in a population. Natural selection states that those individuals which posses some advantage in the environment (such as being a faster runner) are more likely to leave more offspring, thereby increasing the probability of passing the advantage on to future generations. Natural Selection is what "retains" the occasional positive mutation and causes the population to "advance" is some way. Creationists note that this mechanism can only "select" among already existing traits - it cannot create something new. This is not general evolution, it is Variation. Animals, such as birds, living in different places may have different beaks or feathers, but they cannot evolve into a new species. Sadly, this is being taught as Evolution to children in schools.

This ignores mutation, the source of the variation that natural selection acts on. There are many forms of mutation, including duplication of genes, so there is a wealth of material on which natural selection can act.

Sadly, Evolution in general is not being taught to children in schools often enough, basically because attacks on science make it seem "to controversial" or too politically costly to school administrators and science teachers alike.

Quote by: Rainbow Neither Theology-based Nor Science and Technology-based "exhibits" can prove or deny any data on Mankind creation and/or evolution, since we have no crucial data on : - Mankind's Genesis No one has that information, except for speculations, theories, assumptions, views, opinions, ect. What am I to debate, not having the fundamental data that stands for Mankind's Genesis ?

Well, you could take your head out of the sand an note the wealth of data on the "genesis" of humankind, whether fossil evidence that shows transitions, or genetic evidence that shows relationships.

Quote by: Plasma Snake[D] Science kind of opens a big unknown that people are not ready to face. We shouldnt criticize those that are religiously narrow minded.

Tell you what: if they don't come onto DBs and act like know-it-alls, I'll leave them alone in their ignorance. But when they post on here, then they are fair game.

[northtexan]

Quote by: whydoumockme I have a question?.....where does it say or it is proven that creationism and evolution don't go hand in hand with explaining our existence......I’ve studied evolution and the bible.....I wonder, in the bible it says one day in heaven is a thousand years on earth...I believe that because the knowledge of time was a little less then it is now that they really meant a million years......I know that "humans" have been on this earth a little over 7 million years and around 2.5 million years ago "humans" underwent a "mutation" that brought about bigger brains and all that stuff......what I don't get is why when it says in the bible that God molded man out of clay (dirt from the earth, which we are proven to be made out of) that this process didn't take millions of years.....I personally don't believe that we just poofed out of thin air....but that God molded us over along period of time into what we are now….why couldn’t this process of “evolution” be God “molding” his perfect creation……I know after I post this people will find flaws in my idea…..but I believe that we’ll never find the answer because God doesn’t want us to…..if we were to find all the answers to our questions then there will be no need for him……then he’ll be lonely….so I don’t believe that my little idea explains much…..but it’s just an idea

No one has or can prove that they cannot go hand in hand. The issue is that science and religion are two different realms of human activity. Science can only explain what it can observe, measure, test, and/or manipulate and can only explain that with reference to other factors that it can observe, measure, test, and/or manipulate. An Intelligent Designer, as advocated by the ID advocates, decidedly does not fill that bill -- particularly given that the IDCers (ID Creationists) claim that we should not and cannot inquire as to the identity of the IDer nor the processes by with the IDer designed and operationalized the designs. By contrast, science also operates on the principle of parsimony: it does not make assumptions or attempt explanations unnecessarily. Since science has not found the need to assume design in most of biology (with the exception, of course, of domesticated animals and others to which humans have applied their own intelligence, whether or not they realized that this influenced the animals' "design"), it does not assume design. It does not claim that design is disproven, and in fact cannot be disproven. Even the most natural-looking reaction in fact could be designed.

As to theology, most mainstream religions have no problem with evolution.

[weasel]

to those in favor of the THEORY of evolution, please visit the following sites and justify your views.


http://www.doesgodexist.org/

http://www.godandscience.org/

http://www.creationmoments.com/

[RickSp]

I looked at the first link and found a rather lame argument from First Cause and an equally lame argument from Design. Nothing really new or necessarily worth responding to. Bertrand Russell did a good job responding to these arguments and several more back in 1927. Rather than asking us to waste our time why don't you consider this weasel:

Why I Am Not A Christian