Intelligent design/creationism

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 2:34 pm

An interesting story about people trying to take us back to the pre-Scopes Monkey Trial days:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... A3PE11.DTL

I'm sure this will get reversed at some point -- maybe the state will step in and right the ship out of fear of state-wide humiliation and damage to the reputation of their public schools.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 2:56 pm

The school board in Darby tried to do that last year, but, fortunately, the decision was reversed by somebody. I believe the decision to teach theology in science class called into question the school's accreditation.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:06 pm

If man truly evolved from monkeys & apes, why are there still monkeys & apes?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:10 am

El_Gato wrote:If man truly evolved from monkeys & apes, why are there still monkeys & apes?

(Assuming that was a serious question, which it probably wasn't) Because we didn't evolve from monkeys and apes -- we just happen to have ancestors in common.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:21 am

Evolution is not fact--it is only a theory. There are no diaries, no credible proof of its legitimacy.

While some discount the idea of the Bible being the record of Creation, it is the only account of life as we know it--the rest is just a theory.

Why is it that we haven't any answers for the "missing link" issue...?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:39 am

'93HonoluluCat wrote:Evolution is not fact--it is only a theory. There are no diaries, no credible proof of its legitimacy.

While some discount the idea of the Bible being the record of Creation, it is the only account of life as we know it--the rest is just a theory.

Why is it that we haven't any answers for the "missing link" issue?

No, it's not the only account of life as we know it. Every religion has a creation story. None of them were diaries, and each of them was created by men to explain that which was beyond their own knowledge (before science began to explain things).

So since we don't have video tape evidence (is that Rodney King getting beat by the LAPD? No, I do believe it is actually an evolving mutated fish making its first brave steps on land) proving evolution (or gravity, for that matter), apparently we should just tell kids that everything in the natural world is based on magic, or that Zeus wanted it that way, so he had Aphrodite do something on a lily pad or something like that. Or perhaps it was the giant dung beetle that gave birth to the earth from a Native American religion. Or maybe the Jewish God said "Let it be" and poof, there it was.

It's scary how many people do still discard evolution in favor of creationism, especially after even the Pope came out pro-evolution (he said that the two theories were compatible, which was essentially an acquiescence that the Catholic Church didn't want to look like it did in the Copernicus v. Church days of yore where they persecuted a guy for suggesting that the earth rotated around the sun and not visa versa).

So I guess we have two choices -- we can teach kids that science is invalid if it wasn't written in the Bible (which, lest we forget, tells us to have slaves, treat women as property, murder people who aren't Jewish, yada, yada, yada), or we can go ahead and give the kids a chance to learn science and join the modern world.

I once had to break up with a really cute girl after she told me that she didn't believe in evolution and that dinosaur fossils were planted by Satan to confuse us (after all, the earth was only a couple thousand years old per the Bible). That was deal breaker.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:06 am

Evolution is a theory, and we're long from filling the gaps, but it's based on factual observations and science. Creationism is a story or myth handed down through generations.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with religious beliefs and the idea of intelligent design, but the basis is mystical and has nothing to do with scientific observation.

Science is one thing, religion is another. It doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to tell the difference.

One belongs in one class room, the other in another.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 10:43 am

We probably wouldn't have made it this far without religion.

We probably wouldn't have made it this far without the goat-drawn wagon.

We discarded the goat-draw wagon for the internal combustion engine and now the hybrid engine (struggling through the Edsel, Gremlin, Pacer, Thing, Honda Insight along the way) so maybe now we should....

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:37 am

Science? Proof of evolution? What proof do you have? Were you there?

If you claim fossils and other strata found in the bedrock of our planet, there are many examples of items in the past 50 years that have already fossilized of which here are two:

- a coal miner's hat in Farmington, MO
- geologic strata have formed in the canyons carved follwing the eruption of Mt St Helens in the 80s

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:19 am

'93HonoluluCat wrote:Science? Proof of evolution? What proof do you have? Were you there?

If you claim fossils and other strata found in the bedrock of our planet, there are many examples of items in the past 50 years that have already fossilized of which here are two:

- a coal miner's hat in Farmington, MO
- geologic strata have formed in the canyons carved follwing the eruption of Mt St Helens in the 80s

How does the fossilization of 50 year old items disprove the existence of scientifically dated (carbon dating, etc.) fossils from millions of years ago of extinct species? The existence of one doesn't contradict the existence of the other.

Outside of the classic "The Devil planted the fossils" argument, there really isn't much of an argument to counter the scientific evidence that exists. It can be argued until blue in the face that "We didn't see it happen," but if that is a legit argument, then virtually all science must be abandoned, as we cannot see how many electrons are attached to a stable molecule, nor can we "see" gravity. We can only observe the evidence and make rationale conclusions based upon those observations.

Saying that a supernatural force "created" man is not a rationale conclusion. We have ZERO evidence to support such a claim. We have a lot of evidence to support the theory of evolution. It is best to teach scientific theories that have at very least some evidence supporting them. Teaching one that is based on zero evidence is not teaching science -- we just as well be teaching astrology instead of astonomy in science class if we reach that level.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:30 am

fossilization of 50 year old items disprove the existence of scientifically dated (carbon dating, etc.) fossils from millions of years ago of extinct species?

Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs. The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.

But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconcieved notion.

What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old. This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead. This is common practice.

They then used potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again. They did this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results were as much as 150 million years different from each other! - how’s that for an "exact" science?
change the facts to fit the theory.

Carbon dating is a good dating tool for some things that we know the relative date of. Something that is 300 years old for example. But it is far from an exact science. It is somewhat accurate back to a few thousand years, but carbon dating is not accurate past this. Thirty thousand years is about the limit. However, this does not mean that the earth is 30 thousand years old. It is much younger than that. Because of the earth’s declining magnetic field, more radiation (which forms C14) is allowed into the earth’s atmosphere.

The man who invented carbon dating postulated that atmospheric carbon would reach equilibrium in 30,000 years. He assumed that the earth was millions of years old, and that it was already at equilibrium. However each time they test it, they find more c14 in the atmosphere, and have realized that we are only 1/3 the way to equilibrium. What does this mean? It means that based on C14 formation, the earth has to be less than 1/3 of 30,000 years old. This would make the earth less than 10,000 years old!

Carbon dating is based on the assumption that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has always been the same. But there is more carbon in the atmosphere now than there was 4 thousand years ago.

Since carbon dating measures the amount of carbon still in a fossil, then the date given is not accurate. Carbon dating makes an animal living 4 thousand years ago (when there was less atmospheric carbon) appear to have lived thousands of years before it actually did.

The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years...The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago...

Sounds like an exact science to me!

Outside of the classic "The Devil planted the fossils" argument, there really isn't much of an argument to counter the scientific evidence that exists.

First, I don't believe "the devil planted the fossils." They were fossilized as a result of the sedimentary actions following the Flood as described in Genesis. Next, I disagree with your statement about the scientific evidence. The miner's hat in MO and Mt St Helens both are modern examples of rapid geologic strata and fossilization, and proof that it doesn't take "millions of years" to fossilize something--it only takes the proper conditions.

We have a lot of evidence to support the theory of evolution.

Really? I haven't heard any evidence you've put forward for which I haven't at least been able to provide an alternate--and equally viable--explanation.

Teaching one that is based on zero evidence is not teaching science

Then why are we teaching evolution in school?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:11 pm

So in summary, is it safe to say that your view is that the Bible is literal and factual, and all modern science that contradicts it is simply wrong? If so, then we don't really need to say anything more -- the gap between your view and mine will never diminish until your view changes.

This is a perfect example of a major negative of religion -- it encourages people to blatantly and intentionally disregard science and other realities in favor of absolute faith in myths. As individuals, that's not a big deal. They are only hurting themselves. As a tolerant person, I am all for people engaging in any activity as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. But on a societal level, this is not the kind of thinking we can even joke about forcing on kids in public schools. Let parents mess up their kids at home if need be, but in school, they must be taught that which makes them more functional in this world of science and other realities.

This is exactly why we can't let the Christian Right run roughshod over this country -- they would like to take us back to the dark ages intellectually.

I will hand it to you, though, you certainly are well read in the field of arguments against anything that doesn't jive with the Bible (although most of the arguments sound eerily similar to the O.J. Simpson reasonable doubt defense -- "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit." Fortunately, reasonable doubt doesn't work nearly as well in scientific discussions, and a lack of irrefutable evidence doesn't directly lead to belief in an alternate and completely irrational theory). I'm sure there are lots of books and newletters pulled together by like-minded people who are desperately trying to put up a good fight in the face of the overwhelming advancement of education and science throughout the world. Most people now do realize that their religions are personal philosophies, and not a hard set of "facts" about history. It's frustrating that a bright guy like you can't let yourself come to that same realization, but I know other bright people in the same situation -- it's a hard place to move from, and I understand that.

Post by **kmax** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:53 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:So in summary, is it safe to say that your view is that the Bible is literal and factual, and all modern science that contradicts it is simply wrong? If so, then we don't really need to say anything more -- the gap between your view and mine will never diminish until your view changes.

This is a perfect example of a major negative of religion -- it encourages people to blatantly and intentionally disregard science and other realities in favor of absolute faith in myths. As individuals, that's not a big deal. They are only hurting themselves. As a tolerant person, I am all for people engaging in any activity as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. But on a societal level, this is not the kind of thinking we can even joke about forcing on kids in public schools. Let parents mess up their kids at home if need be, but in school, they must be taught that which makes them more functional in this world of science and other realities.

This is exactly why we can't let the Christian Right run roughshod over this country -- they would like to take us back to the dark ages intellectually.

I will hand it to you, though, you certainly are well read in the field of arguments against anything that doesn't jive with the Bible. I'm sure there are lots of books and newletters pulled together by like-minded people who are desperately trying to put up a good fight in the face of the overwhelming advancement of education and science throughout the world. Most people now do realize that their religions are personal philosophies, and not a hard set of "facts" about history. It's frustrating that a bright guy like you can't let yourself come to that same realization, but I know other bright people in the same situation -- it's a hard place to move from, and I understand that.

I don't get your post at all BAC. You deride 93HC for such things as "the Bible is literal and factual, and all modern science that contradicts it is simply wrong," "blatantly and intentionally disregard science and other realities in favor of absolute faith in myths," and "they would like to take us back to the dark ages intellectually." Yet when I read his post directly above yours, it reads as a scientific dissent against what you are claiming to be evidence of your position and has considerably more scientific data to back up his position than anything you have given.

For you or anyone else to blindly accept evolution as fact without acknowledging the obvious holes yet to be filled in the theory is absolutely no different than the religious person trusting blindly that the Bible is the only account. There are holes in the theory of evolution, it is not on par with the theory of gravity so please stop using that comparison. Remember, scientific theories can be and often are wrong. As far as I know nobody ever fell off the edge of the earth though it was commonly known the earth was flat. Do not become so pretentious to think that just because we are living in an age of increased knowledge and study that we have all the answers. The day we quit questioning the theories and scientific "common knowledge" is the day that we quit advancing as a society.

Now, to get back to the original subject, whether we teach divine intervention in schools is definately a sticky subject, perhaps it should just be left to Sunday school and private schools. However, I definately don't agree with the way most science classes teach evolution as the one answer. It needs to be presented as it is, a theory that has some evidence to support it, some evidence which doesn't fit, and some holes yet to be filled. To teach it as a law that shouldn't be questioned is a huge disservice to not only those of religious background, but to the scientific community.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:11 pm

kmax: You make good points. My frustration is with the fact that it does not appear to me that the manner in which evolution is being questioned is being done to question/improve the theory itself as it is being done to suggest that the bible is right and should not be questioned. Of course challenging a theory is the right thing to do, but not by substituting something mythical in its place. HV93 has lots of verbiage pulled from various places that challenge evolution, but the intent behind seemed to me to be less interested in scientific skepticism than advancing the creationist agenda.

Basically, as long as people don't try to tell me that creationism is factual, then I will be willing to listen to any theories they might have, no matter how far out or reaching they might sound. However, if it appears that somebody is simply trying to advance creationism as a fact, and particularly if they are suggesting that it should be taught in schools, then I will get pretty aggressive in my defense of science. When taught in school, teachers should encourage students to think critically about it, but we certainly shouldn't teach them an alternate "scientific" theory from (any) religious texts.

That being said, HC is amazingly even tempered in his posts, while I am clearly much more emotional on certain topics. Even when I try to piss him off, he takes the high road and keeps an even keel. I admire that (even at my own expense).

And, just for clarification, I am not putting evolution on the same footing as gravity in absolute terms -- one is a scientific theory and one is a scientific law. I only use the two analogously to refute the argument that we should disregard evolution because we can't "see" irrefutable evidence of it.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:13 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:...the gap between your view and mine will never diminish until your view changes...

Bay, let's change your name to "Blue Area Cat", shall we? Your intellectual arrogance is showing through more & more as time goes on... I'm amazed that you are a Bobcat; your condescending views of us poor Red folk would lead me to believe you attended the school of modern dance in Missoula rather than MSU...

I read Honolulu's post carefully and I agree with kmax; how do you explain away the SCIENTIFIC gaps that he pointed out? Easy, because you want to.

The bottom line is there are many such "gaps" in both of the areas of discussion here. You think that science is superior & makes you "smarter" than or superior to someone who favors a more "religious" view of the world. Hate to break it to you, but there's enough unanswered questions in both realms to leave one puzzled at best...

Do me a favor, bay, and park your "I'm superior" attitude; I enjoy your viewpoints far more when they don't include the condescension.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:28 pm

El_Gato wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:...the gap between your view and mine will never diminish until your view changes...
Bay, let's change your name to "Blue Area Cat", shall we? Your intellectual arrogance is showing through more & more as time goes on... I'm amazed that you are a Bobcat; your condescending views of us poor Red folk would lead me to believe you attended the school of modern dance in Missoula rather than MSU...

I read Honolulu's post carefully and I agree with kmax; how do you explain away the SCIENTIFIC gaps that he pointed out? Easy, because you want to.

The bottom line is there are many such "gaps" in both of the areas of discussion here. You think that science is superior & makes you "smarter" than or superior to someone who favors a more "religious" view of the world. Hate to break it to you, but there's enough unanswered questions in both realms to leave one puzzled at best...

Do me a favor, bay, and park your "I'm superior" attitude; I enjoy your viewpoints far more when they don't include the condescension.

I didn't think that creationism was a "red" state thing (it's an extreme right wing thing, maybe, but not a pure "red" thing). Most people I know in red states don't believe in it either. Please limit my opinions to the points I am speaking to, and don't assign them as being derogatory to a whole group of people.

And let's leave the silly MSU/UM digs out of it, okay? MSU is a scientific institution -- I think there might be a few people there who bristle at this subject. Most, in fact.

As to the quote of mine that you posted -- I stand by that one. He and I probably won't agree on this topic (creationism v. evolution on a top-level view -- not the idea of challenging gaps in the theory itself) as we are on different sides of the faith thing. As I have posted before, once a discussion hits the faith/no faith wall, very little progress can be made past that point as one relies exclusively on observation and tangible evidence (for better or for worse) and one, by definition, ignores observation and tangible evidence (for better or for worse). So once a conversation hits that point, it can go no further unless one person or the other changes their mind. I know that I'm not going to change my mind, so I didn't include that as an option. I doubt he is, either, but since I don't know that for a fact, I left that open-ended.

You read that as an arrogant statement -- I wrote it as a statement of fact.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:25 pm

Interesting link:

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:40 pm

Interesting topic that goes to the very core of who each individual person really is, but to be perfectly honest does any one really think you are going to change / alter/ or building upon our fellow Bobcatnation friends and neihbors opinions, on this subject! I doubt it, as tempting as it is to jump into the frey I think I will only step on on ther peoples beliefs, beat my chest and try to make myself feel important, and in the end feel very frustrated!

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:08 pm

So in the spirit of fair play, I could just cut and past this article that I just found into a post, suggesting that I had put a lot of scientific thought into the discussion. I could then see if anybody would read it, much less understand the technical details of what it is that I just posted. When they give up out of fear of losing their jobs spending the time trying to find the source of each point, and then determining the validity of each point, some would simply assume that I know quite a bit and put forth a lot of evidence to support my position.

Instead, I'll just post the link. This is my posting of an article to counter HC's article posting (in the body of the post) from earlier. This is so much easier than trying to argue against the assertion that the earth is only a few thousand years old, contrary to all existing evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

And no, mslacat, these kinds of thing will likely never change anyone's minds, but they are kind of interesting in limited doses.

catbooster · Post by **catbooster** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:01 am

When I was in grad school at MSU, a guy I shared office space with was taking a class with an interesting text. It was for some core class. He kept this book on his shelf, and I’d be working late at night on some engineering work and need a break. I would read a chapter once in awhile to reboot my system.

This book (IIRC the title was “God and the Big Bang”) was written by a Jewish physicist who fully believed in creation as presented in Genesis, yet as a scientist also believed in the theories of the big bang and evolution (incidentally, the scientific definition of theory is not the same as most of us use in conversation – gravity is also a theory, but few people claim to not believe in gravity). He had never worried too much about how to reconcile them, just accepted that they were both right. When his son started questioning him, however, he was not satisfied with simply saying “I don’t know, but I’m sure it works somehow.”

So he started applying his knowledge to the creation/big bang + evolution question (creation in Genesis spans both theories). He discussed commentaries by Talmudic scholars throughout Jewish history (quite interesting in and of itself, since I’d never known much about Judaism). He also discussed the scientific evidence in support of the theories of the big bang and evolution. Additionally he pointed out the perceived conflicts between them and the unresolved points within them.

He concluded that there are various discontinuities in the theories, gaps in the fossil record, etc. But excluding these few discrete points, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the accuracy of the theories. Each of these gaps corresponds to an action taken by God in Genesis, i.e. created the heavens and the earth – the mathematics behind the big bang theory cannot explain the impetus for the big bang without an unexplained energy input to get it started. The order of creation and the fossil record agree, i.e. fish before mammals.

The main sticking point most people have is the time frame – 6 days vs. millions of years. He explained this by using the theory of relativity (which I also found interesting since I had taken a relativistic physics class a year or two before that). According to him, the age of man matches with the time span since the creation of Adam very well. It is prior to the creation of man that the two time frames disagree.

In relativity, time is not a constant; it varies based on the frame of reference. What was millions of years on earth could easily appear to be a day, a minute or trillions of years from some other frame of reference. His contention was that prior to man, God had no reason to adjust his time frame. Once he had created man, he could have easily switched over to man’s reference.

He made a point of emphasizing that his book only presented a possible explanation of how the two can be reconciled. There is no way he can prove it’s right, and it’s entirely possible that there are other acceptable explanations. His goal was to point out that creation/bb&e does not have to be an either/or proposition, even if you believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.

It’s interesting to me that we, as Christians can use the verse about “seeing through a glass dimly” (hope I remembered that right) and acknowledge that our understanding is imperfect, yet be so sure that we understand those few verses in Genesis so well that we must reject any science that doesn’t fit with it