Wrong-way evolution of the creationist movement

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
By Patrick Chisholm | csmonitor.com

WASHINGTON – Christian fundamentalists often have been accused of wanting to alter the laws and institutions of the United States. Actually it is usually the other way around; most of the time they only try to prevent America's laws and institutions from being radically altered. One example is their battle to stem the banning of Christmas symbols and celebrations.

But there is one area where many Christian fundamentalists do indeed want to impose radical change: the teaching of Biblical creationism vs. evolution in public schools.


After losing favor since the Scopes trial 80 years ago, the creationist movement seems to be making inroads again. In Dover, Pa., school administrators recently ordered biology teachers to declare in class that "Darwin's theory... is a theory, not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence." In an Atlanta suburb in 2002, stickers were placed on textbooks stating that "evolution is a theory, not a fact ..." Then, last month, a judge ruled the stickers unconstitutional.

In 1999, the Kansas state board of education voted to remove most references to evolution from state education standards, a decision that was reversed two years later.

According to a CBS poll conducted last fall, two-thirds of Americans favor teaching creationism in public schools together with evolution, and 37 percent want to totally replace the teaching of evolution with creationism.

But saying evolution is a theory is like saying the earth revolving around the sun is a theory. Or that plate tectonics (continental drift) is a theory. Or that things are made of atoms is a theory. Just because such things are not apparent to the human eye doesn't mean they aren't factual.

Evolution is a fact. Because it involves time periods spanning hundreds or thousands of generations, evolutionary change happens much too slowly for humans to perceive.

And in some cases, natural selection happens plenty quickly enough for us to perceive. Through mutations, new strains of antidote-resistant viruses are always emerging. The same holds true for pesticide-resistant insects. There is also the famous example of the peppered moth near Manchester, England. Starting out with light-colored wings, they were camouflaged as they rested on tree trunks of the same color. But as industrial pollution made the trees dark, birds picked off the light-colored moths. Mutant moths born with black wings survived, reproduced, and multiplied.

Through observing a petri dish of bacteria, evolution can even be observed in a matter of hours. Adding a certain antibiotic kills the vast majority of the bacteria, but some of them are immune and go on to mass-reproduce.

To take a human example, it is revealing that Nepalese Sherpas are generally much better at climbing Mt. Everest than anyone else. It is not just because of skill, but because their bodies seem to have adapted genetically to the extreme environment, according to scientists. How did this adaptation take place? Not because God decided one day to give all Sherpas a better oxygen-processing capability than other populations, but because of natural selection: the people whose bodies could not process oxygen in a high-altitude environment failed to survive to reproduce.

So evolution is happening right before our very eyes. Evolution is as elementary as the earth as round; for someone to try to convince me otherwise is like someone trying to convince me that the earth is flat.

Suppressing the teaching of evolution or presenting it as a controversial "theory" would be a huge step backward in education. Save creationism for Sunday school.

That said, there may be room for a concept called intelligent design - as long as it is not hijacked and distorted by the Biblical creationists. Advancements in science have enabled the observation of tinier things and more complex phenomena. Michael J. Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, points to the example of complex engines that power the motion of certain bacteria. Behe states that if one of the many dozens of parts that comprise the engine is taken away, the whole engine fails completely. He argues that it is difficult to imagine how something could have been constructed gradually through evolution, given that the engine does not work until all the parts have been assembled. One theory is that an intelligent designer played a role. To be sure, it in no way refutes evolution, which easily explains how most other biological phenomena were designed.

If science cannot explain how certain biological components were constructed - a big if - then that point could be made in class. It would be up to students to draw their own conclusions as to how such things came about, just as it is up to them to draw their own conclusions as to what causes gravity. (Science still doesn't have a good answer. Could it be God?) But teaching that everything was created some 6,000 years ago, in six days, would be foolhardy.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0223/p25s01-cogn.html
 
Stupidity revealed are the people who confuse the vulgar vernacular "theory" with the scientific connotation of the word "Theory". I'm suprised they didn't bother to explain the difference in the article somewhere.
 
Public school should be for evolution theory and Sunday school for creationism. Intelligent Design is just a way to get god in classrooms again. "Well, we don't know exactly what caused this so it might be god." It might also be Zeus, the Boogey Man or Bigfoot. You can't prove that Bigfoot didn't create the universe so why not teach that too.

The fact that we as a society are still arguing about evolution makes me wonder if we're devolving now.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Public school should be for evolution theory and Sunday school for creationism. [/QUOTE]

I'm all for teaching philosophy in public schools - even if only for the "AP" kids. You can make your deist "clockwork god" theories right along side that of the dogmatist and strict materialist views of the world in a philosophy course. Also - then maybe the christians will realize that their views aren't science.

I know I have high hopes. I guess we should be glad that Bush hasn't attacked Socrates for being a "homo pagan" (hey, his favorite philosopher is Jesus for crying out loud)
 
I'm not sure I understand the article....he seems to use the fact that evolution occurs to state that evolution is the way that life originated on earth...am I misinterpreting?
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']The fact that we as a society are still arguing about evolution makes me wonder if we're devolving now.[/QUOTE]

They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say it's all
Just wind and sails
Are we not men?
We are DEVO
 
[quote name='oleander']I'm not sure I understand the article....he seems to use the fact that evolution occurs to state that evolution is the way that life originated on earth...am I misinterpreting?[/QUOTE]

Basically, he's saying that evolution is a fact, and most likely works on its own and is the origin of life. But, if science can't explain everything (which he isn't sure about), then it's possible god does play a stabilizing role somewhere, but the driving force is still natural selection/evolution, not god. He doesn't believe creationism is correct in any sense though. He's distinguishing from creationism and intelligent design.
 
You can't prove or disprove "Intelligent Design". But at least it allows for science not to be wrong.

Some big dude in the sky sat down for like a week and built everything six thousand years ago? Baloney.

A universal conciousness set into play a series of seemingly random events that resulted in complex thinking beings? Possibly. Neither provable or unprovable.

Why not? It's a "theory" that at least concedes that 2000 years of science isn't wrong.
 
I for one am sick of the way schools are trying to pass off the heliocentric viewpoint as fact. It is only a theory, and the church has spoken out against it (and in fact, has executed more than one scientist for supporting it).
 
I find it funny that they are afraid of showing IMAX movies dealing with Evolution in the South. One is about Darwin and another is about Volcanos. Things are getting really out of hand fast. You start giving people an inch and they take a mile.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']I find it funny that they are afraid of showing IMAX movies dealing with Evolution in the South. One is about Darwin and another is about Volcanos. Things are getting really out of hand fast. You start giving people an inch and they take a mile.[/QUOTE]

Nobody's "afraid". Unfortunately, choosing these movies would just not be a good decision in today's market.
 
[quote name='eldad9']Nobody's "afraid". Unfortunately, choosing these movies would just not be a good decision in today's market.[/QUOTE]

yeah you are right it would be poor economic move, plus I am sure there would be atleast one protestor
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']yeah you are right it would be poor economic move, plus I am sure there would be atleast one protestor[/QUOTE]

There's always at least one protestor to most every movie somewhere.
 
"evolution is a fact" - I stopped reading past that point, ridiculous. Even the theory of gravity is not a "fact", and there is a lot less evidence that the theory of evolution is "fact" than that.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']"evolution is a fact" - I stopped reading past that point, ridiculous. Even the theory of gravity is not a "fact", and there is a lot less evidence that the theory of evolution is "fact" than that.[/QUOTE]

Ladies and Gentleman, may I present the lone protestor :D
 
[quote name='elprincipe']"evolution is a fact" - I stopped reading past that point, ridiculous. Even the theory of gravity is not a "fact", and there is a lot less evidence that the theory of evolution is "fact" than that.[/QUOTE]

All the evidence we have for gravity is that it exists not why it exists. With evolution we can see that is occurs and show what leads to its occurance. That is the difference between scientific theory and fact. Keep in mind that while the theory of evolution is scientific fact the Darwinian theory of evolution is a theory.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']"evolution is a fact" - I stopped reading past that point, ridiculous. Even the theory of gravity is not a "fact", and there is a lot less evidence that the theory of evolution is "fact" than that.[/QUOTE]

Gravity is only a theory?? You sir have opened my eyes to the truth. From now on I will no longer be a slave to gravity.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']It's like creationist are intentionally trying to impede man's progress. Like they can become their own evidence against evolution.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure Nietzsche would enjoy this joke :)
 
[quote name='dcfox']Gravity is only a theory?? You sir have opened my eyes to the truth. From now on I will no longer be a slave to gravity.[/QUOTE]

Havent you played Smugglers Run?

Up down up down ABAB ---> Gravity off!

Take that Newton!!
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']It's like creationist are intentionally trying to impede man's progress. Like they can become their own evidence against evolution.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure Nietzsche would enjoy this joke :)[/QUOTE]

:D
 
Does this mean we need to put stickers on all the copies of the Bible that say, "God is only a theory." :whistle2:k
 
[quote name='Kayden']Does this mean we need to put stickers on all the copies of the Bible that say, "God is only a theory." :whistle2:k[/QUOTE]

or maybe "fairy tail"?
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']It's like creationist are intentionally trying to impede man's progress. Like they can become their own evidence against evolution.[/QUOTE]

very interesting way of looking at it. Im really not on either side of this argument. i really doubt religion has any answers, but since the begining of man there has always been religion, weather it be budda, jehova, or a pet rock.

we've needed these gods to give us a reason to why we're alive. haveing no reason is a scary thought to most people. thinking that no matter what they do in there lives the only thing you amount to in the end is a little bit of carbon left from what used to be your corpse isnt a really nice thought, and due to this there will always be religion.

since evolution offers no real purpose it is much harder to acept, even though logicaly more sound, than that mythical higher being.

the only peace i (personally) have found on this subject is to admit that i really dont know. its always best not to worry to much about it and just go with the flow.

At the same time, I dont think any decision should be based on what some book says...no matter how old it is.
 
[quote name='masta0031']since evolution offers no real purpose it is much harder to acept, even though logicaly more sound, than that mythical higher being.[/QUOTE]

The purpose of evolution is the propagation of the species.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']The purpose of evolution is the propagation of the species.[/QUOTE]

Wooooooooo life = SEX!
:bouncy::bouncy::bouncy::bouncy:
 
[quote name='masta0031']very interesting way of looking at it. Im really not on either side of this argument. i really doubt religion has any answers, but since the begining of man there has always been religion, weather it be budda, jehova, or a pet rock.

we've needed these gods to give us a reason to why we're alive. haveing no reason is a scary thought to most people. thinking that no matter what they do in there lives the only thing you amount to in the end is a little bit of carbon left from what used to be your corpse isnt a really nice thought, and due to this there will always be religion.

since evolution offers no real purpose it is much harder to acept, even though logicaly more sound, than that mythical higher being.

the only peace i (personally) have found on this subject is to admit that i really dont know. its always best not to worry to much about it and just go with the flow.

At the same time, I dont think any decision should be based on what some book says...no matter how old it is.[/QUOTE]

Found this quote a few days ago, pretty much sums up my beliefs:

"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."
-John McCarthy

and this quote sums up my opinion on creationism, the way most believe in it anyway:
"If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call in question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it—the life of that man is one long sin against mankind."
-William Clifford
 
I am a creationist. I also believe in adaptation, but not to the extent of beings evolving into other creatures. I honestly don't care what schools teach on the subject because usually by the time it is being taught, most individuals have a good idea what their beliefs are. From my experience, evolution has always been taught as a theory, so I don't quite understand the problem there. I know when I was presented with this material, I had no problem distinguishing between what I think is fact and theory that I don't believe in.
 
[quote name='masta0031']we've needed these gods to give us a reason to why we're alive. haveing no reason is a scary thought to most people. thinking that no matter what they do in there lives the only thing you amount to in the end is a little bit of carbon left from what used to be your corpse isnt a really nice thought, and due to this there will always be religion.

since evolution offers no real purpose it is much harder to acept, even though logicaly more sound, than that mythical higher being.[/QUOTE]

Evolution is pretty easy to accept, it follows logic and can be empirically demonstrated.

It's much harder to trust something other then your base senses. However why not - your base senses were designed so that you could run around in grasslands eating deer, antelope, and buffalo. Is it such a far-out idea that your senses lie to you as a result of being part of a hard-wired survival mechanism? Or that they only give you pieces of the existence puzzle?

Regardless of my second paragraph, if you pick up any 2000 year-old book full of magic, demi-gods, and contradictory rules and accept all of it as the straight-up truth, then you are taking the easy way out.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']I am a creationist. I also believe in adaptation, but not to the extent of beings evolving into other creatures.[/QUOTE]

adaptation is esentially evolution, the only difference is evolution states that after numerious adaptation the adapted animals will reach a point where they are no longer be able to reproduce with the species they came from, thereby creating a new species. Evolution and Darwinian evolution are not the same thing.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']adaptation is esentially evolution, the only difference is evolution states that after numerious adaptation the adapted animals will reach a point where they are no longer be able to reproduce with the species they came from, thereby creating a new species. Evolution and Darwinian evolution are not the same thing.[/QUOTE]

"Adaptation," or natural selection, is a far, far cry from the Theory of Evolution. Natural selection merely says that existing characteristics in species will become more prevalent if the carriers of those genes are more successful at reproducing than the carriers of other genes. Not only is this just common mathematical sense, but it's been pretty well demonstrated in many cases, including the moth study in Industrial Revolution-era England that someone mentioned.

The Theory of Evolution, OTOH, claims that random mutations within species lead to new characteristics and these are then thrown into the mix, with some of these mutations ending up having beneficial characteristics to reproduction, thus being selected through natural selection. There are a lot of rather difficult questions with regard to this theory, and if someone wants to get into a more detailed (but hopefully mature) discussion of evolution I'm willing to throw some out that I feel are more than legitimate reasons to not accept the Theory of Evolution as a proven fact.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']"Adaptation," or natural selection, is a far, far cry from the Theory of Evolution. Natural selection merely says that existing characteristics in species will become more prevalent if the carriers of those genes are more successful at reproducing than the carriers of other genes. Not only is this just common mathematical sense, but it's been pretty well demonstrated in many cases, including the moth study in Industrial Revolution-era England that someone mentioned.

The Theory of Evolution, OTOH, claims that random mutations within species lead to new characteristics and these are then thrown into the mix, with some of these mutations ending up having beneficial characteristics to reproduction, thus being selected through natural selection. There are a lot of rather difficult questions with regard to this theory, and if someone wants to get into a more detailed (but hopefully mature) discussion of evolution I'm willing to throw some out that I feel are more than legitimate reasons to not accept the Theory of Evolution as a proven fact.[/QUOTE]

Evolution:
The change in the frequency of alleles between one generation and the next.
http://en.wikpedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Please stop confusing Evolution and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution.

But this topic is near dead and if you would like to throw out your problems with the Darwinian Theory of Evolution or even problems you have with the idea of genetic mutation or natural selection please feel free. Perhaps they will keep this topic alive for another page or 2.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Evolution:
The change in the frequency of alleles between one generation and the next.
http://en.wikpedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Please stop confusing Evolution and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution.

But this topic is near dead and if you would like to throw out your problems with the Darwinian Theory of Evolution or even problems you have with the idea of genetic mutation or natural selection please feel free. Perhaps they will keep this topic alive for another page or 2.[/QUOTE]

When I was in school Darwin's theory of evolution and evolution were used interchangably.... I guess thats what I get for going to public school... could someone differentiate?

Zion, that link isn't very helpful.
 
[quote name='Kayden']When I was in school Darwin's theory of evolution and evolution were used interchangably.... I guess thats what I get for going to public school... could someone differentiate?

Zion, that link isn't very helpful.[/QUOTE]

:oops: Yes the link doesn't seem to work, oh well I cited the source.:lol:

Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are often used interchangably and so people often blur the two together.

Basically evolution is simply the change in genetic makeup (genes, allels) over a period of time. The Darwinian Theory of evolution uses the combination of mutation and natural selection to suggest that all life on the planet came from a common ancestor.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']:oops: Yes the link doesn't seem to work, oh well I cited the source.:lol:

Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are often used interchangably and so people often blur the two together.

Basically evolution is simply the change in genetic makeup (genes, allels) over a period of time. The Darwinian Theory of evolution uses the combination of mutation and natural selection to suggest that all life on the planet came from a common ancestor.[/QUOTE]

So... evolution is akin to a editing a single line of code where Darwinian Evolution is totally recompiling a database?

More or less the same, but on a larger, prolonged scale.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']:oops: Yes the link doesn't seem to work, oh well I cited the source.:lol:

Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are often used interchangably and so people often blur the two together.

Basically evolution is simply the change in genetic makeup (genes, allels) over a period of time. The Darwinian Theory of evolution uses the combination of mutation and natural selection to suggest that all life on the planet came from a common ancestor.[/QUOTE]

Considering the similarity of embryo's in the womb, considering that even bacteria have 60% of their dna in common with humans, that is a fairly safe assumption.
 
[quote name='Kayden']So... evolution is akin to a editing a single line of code where Darwinian Evolution is totally recompiling a database?

More or less the same, but on a larger, prolonged scale.[/QUOTE]

No, evolution in it's basic form doesn't not include mutation it is simply the change in distribution of alleles or genes.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Considering the similarity of embryo's in the womb, considering that even bacteria have 60% of their dna in common with humans, that is a fairly safe assumption.[/QUOTE]

I'm simply trying to demonstrate that basic evolution is scienctific fact and that it is the same as adaptation. Keep in mind that gravity is a fairly safe assumption but we still talk about the theory of gravity.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']No, evolution in it's basic form doesn't not include mutation it is simply the change in distribution of alleles or genes.[/QUOTE]

All those changes over time would surely cause mutations...
 
[quote name='Kayden']All those changes over time would surely cause mutations...[/QUOTE]

That would be part of the theory of evolution.;)

Keep in mind that taking short term evidence and extending it into long term situations is one of the ways in which you get theories.

Oh and also the changes don't cause mutations, the mutations propigated from the individual to the species cause the changes, you've got it backwards.
 
There was an experiment done with fruit flies in a lab. They started with one population and split them up, and bred them for certain things. After about 100 generations they ended up with two similar looking flies, but they could not interbreed and were different species. I'll try to find it.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']There was an experiment done with fruit flies in a lab. They started with one population and split them up, and bred them for certain things. After about 100 generations they ended up with two similar looking flies, but they could not interbreed and were different species. I'll try to find it.[/QUOTE]

And there are numerious cases of bacteria and viruses in which minor mutation occured in the genetic code giving rise to new diseases, it's not that we don't have information that proves that mutation occurs it is simply that we cannot prove that all life originated from the same source unless we build a time machine.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']That would be part of the theory of evolution.;)

Keep in mind that taking short term evidence and extending it into long term situations is one of the ways in which you get theories.

Oh and also the changes don't cause mutations, the mutations propigated from the individual to the species cause the changes, you've got it backwards.[/QUOTE]

What? Uh....
Like one freak occurance and then the rest adapt to it? (Born with 6 fingers and then the rest follow suit?)
 
[quote name='Kayden']What? Uh....
Like one freak occurance and then the rest adapt to it? (Born with 6 fingers and then the rest follow suit?)[/QUOTE]

If there is a mutation in the genetic code of one individual and it is advantagious, then assuming that individual survives and reproduces by natural selection the gene will be propigated into the genetic pool of the entire species. There are some genes that aren't beneficial but are not harmful, infact most mutations don't do anything and in these cases they go unnoticed. In the case of 6 fingers this trait is considered undesirable by humans and so it decreases your odds of reproduction.
 
Here's a page that has some unanswered questions:

http://www.contenderministries.org/evolution/questions.php

I should note that this was just after a short search because I just don't have the time for more, and that I feel some of the questions on said page are rather dumb. Some, however, are good questions that haven't been adequately answered by evolutionists.

I'd like a good explanation of how human beings came to be at this point in time, an extremely complicated animal, using evolution patterns that have actually been observed. Does anyone actually believe that evolution in humans has been observed throughout human history? If not, do you realize that such a slow pace would make it pretty unlikely that humans could have evolved the complexities that we show in the time life is thought to have existed?

Here are another couple basic evolutionary questions.

1. If evolution occurs via mutation and then nautral selection, how do recessive genes exist? One mutation making a recessive gene would never make this gene manifest itself. Why would it be selected for?

2. If only one organism has a particular mutation, which obviously would pretty much have to be true given the random nature of such mutations, there is only a partial chance that it would be passed on. As per my question above, have you taken this into account as to how long these mutations would theoretically take to change things? That's roughly doubling the time...not to mention how did something like going from asexual to sexual reproduction work?

I've got plenty more.
 
Well for your first question if not for evolution how did human and all other life come to be on this planet? Did the Dinosaurs exist? and if they did why can't we find fossels of humans from the same time period? If you wish to claim that evolution is false I would be interested to see what you believe instead.

But for your other questions:
1. Selection does not create mutation, mutation occurs on its own. This means that a gene does not have to be beneficial to be propigated, it is simply more likely to become inherent in the majority or entire population if it is beneficial. In fact plenty of harmful genes are present in the population and continue to exist because while harmful the individuals still live long enough to reproduce. Look at alzheimers and hutchunson's disease there are plenty of other diseases that are the result of genetics and some are recessive genes. It is a misnomer that natural selection is responsible for all genetic change. If a mutation does not hinder your ability to reproduce then it does not fall under the scope of natural selection.

2. Doubling? We are talking much more than that, but do keep in mind how long a million years is, let along 1 billion, besides remember each lifeform has the potential for a beneficial mutation, that is a lot of beings over a very long period of time, infact the odds of no mutation having ever occured is quite close to zero. As far as the whole sex thing goes, some species are cabable of both asexual and sexual reproduction, it's not a chasm that seperates all life into 2 catagories, some fairly advance plants like strawberries are capable of both.
 
bread's done
Back
Top