The old evolution vs. creation (intelligent design?) debate

[Fuzzy Bear]

Ed's question about where to place a person's sick Mother is designed for the chasing of one's own tail. I am surprised that someone hasn't written an encyclopedia.

[le Voyageur]

For the life of me I can't remember the name of the movie, but Anthony Quinn played the role of an eskimo.

 

His mother in law had reached the point where she was no longer a viable member of the family. She was put on the ice for the polar bears to feast on.

 

Could be a solution, hey! :

[acco40]

Anthony Quinn. Ah yes, how many other Mexicans could play a Greek, Italian and an Eskimo on screen!

[le Voyageur]

Aye, so true....but let's not forget Lawrance of Arabia

[Achilleez]

I beleive the gaping expanse that exists between evolution and creationsim spawns from a religous standpoint, and a scientific standpoint. Some creationists disregard evolution because it blatantly contradicts biblical passage. Some other creationists disregard evolution because they reason that life is too complicated to exist on its own.

 

I mean, life is so unbelievably complicated. Few people realize it. A single fertilized egg has a hundred thousand genes, which act in a coordinated way, switching on and off at certain times, to transform that cell into a living creature. That one cell starts to divide, but the subsequent cells are different. They specialize. Some are nerve. Some are gut. Some are limb. Each set of cells begin to follow its own program, developing, interacting. Eventually there are two hundred and fifty different kinds of cells, all developing together, at exactly the right time. Just when the organism needs a circulatory system, the heart starts pumping. Just when hormones are needed, the adrenals start to make them. Week after week, this unimaginably complex developement proceeds perfectly. It's quite incredible. No human activity comes close to it.

 

The point is, this intricate developmental process in the cell is somehting we can barely describe, let alone understand. Actually, we humans have quite limited understanding. Mathematicaly, we can describe two things interacting, like two planets in space. Three things interacting, that becomes a problem. Four or five things interacting, we really can't do it. Inside a cell, there are thousands of things interacting. You have to throw up your hands. It's so complex, how is it even possible life ever happens at all? Some people think the answer is that living forms organize themselves. Life creates its own order, the way crystallization creates order. Some poeple think life crystallizes into being, and that's how the complexity is managed. Because, if you didn't know anything about physical chemistry, you could look at a crystal and ask all the same questions. You'd see those beautiful spars, those perfect geometric facets, and you could ask, what controls this process? How does the crystal end up so perfectly formed, looking just like other crystals. As it turns out, a crystal is just the way molecular forces arrange themselves into solid form. No one controls it, it happens on its own. To ask alot of questions about a crystal means you don't understand the fundamental nature of the process that lead to its creation.

 

So, perhaps life in itself is just an example of crystallization. A characteristic order to living things that is generated by their interacting elements.

 

Of course you can just pick up a bible and forget all this nonsense.

 

 

[Adrianvs]

"DARWINISM can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. On the evolutionary basis you may be inhumane, or you may be absurdly humane; but you cannot be human. That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being as cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you; it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably -- that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws. If you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you must go back to the garden of Eden."

 

G.K. Chesterton

"Orthodoxy"

 

 

I couldn't resist...

[Fuzzy Bear]

Life like a crystal forms itself.

 

These are fighting words to a Creationist because it redefines his God's existence and his personal belief about his Creator.

 

The same words describe the nature of a phenomenon to the scientist. The scientist is merely cataloging evidence. If by chance, a person accumulates enough evidence, then there may some control over that event.

 

It is two very different processes and reactions to the same thing. The Creationists assume that their rights have been violated by another's acts. The scientist assumes that another discovery has been made in the overall complexity of life.

 

Two camps and only one has donned full battle gear. The scientists rarely acknowledge that the other camp is on their way up the hill with lighted torches ready to kill the monster's mad creator in yon castle.

 

The church has for centuries burned their way into the hearts and minds of scholars, scientists, and thinkers. Today we would view more of the same but the math is too difficult for them. So, the church charges back into the only area that makes any sense to them, their old enemy, Evilution. Somehow, if they can purge the heathen of their sacred cow, then all would be well. People would once again believe and their triumph would be complete.

 

The problem is that the Creationist's argument is not valid by any standard.

Because,

If the Bible is correct, then it needs no protector, battle, or liberation. If God is who he claims to be, then the battle is already decided.

And,

If the scientists are really headed toward finding the answers of life and truth, then it stands to reason that they should arrive just a little behind the Creationists.

But,

If the scientists find that life is really like a crystal because it forms itself, then we will still be enchanted with the rare beauty of it all.

So,

There would still be this one large unanswered question that only the Creationists could answer.

 

Just a few passing thoughts,

 

FB

 

[firstpusk]

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

 

Charles Darwin

The Origin of Species

[Proud Eagle]

I think there have been some very good points brought up during this thread. The fact that logic and philosophy are critical subjects for really understanding much of anything is one. Adding some of these coarses into the middle or high school teachings seems like it would be a good idea.

 

Another point that should be taken is that there are people on both sides who take things to extremes. The evolutionists say that the creationists want to turn science into theology. The creationists say the evolutionists want to use science to reject theology. Both are being panicky. There certainly are schools that teach Dwarwanism, Dwarwinian evolution, or just evolution as absolute unquestioned fact. There are other schools that don't teach them in quite such strong terms, but rather never bother to spell out the differences between scientific laws and theories to the point that anyone really knows the difference. Then there are more reasonable but still slightly off schools that teach evolution as theory only but never make mention of any alternative, leaving the impression that while we can't prove this is how it happened, that no one has any other ideas at all. Then there are reasonable places that distinguish Law from Theory and teach evolution, or even Dwarwanism, as theory, and then mention that some people believe in creationism or intelligent design. That approach seems the most reasonable to me. It doesn't require an explanation of intelligent design. It doesn't overstate evolution, nor does it prevent evolution from being taught in a complete manner. It simply provides the truth. Now on the flip side other places demand equal time, or complete discriptions of creationism and all its workings, or simply deny any teachings of evolution at all. It is clear to me what the best approach is.

[scoutingagain]

This article seems relevant to the subject of the thread. In Georgia the title of this thread may need to be changed.

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20040130/ap_on_re_us/striking_evolution_3

 

 

Will we end up with half the nation's schools teaching science and half teaching religion ?

 

SA

[acco40]

From the referenced article: Former President Jimmy Carter had harsh words for the change on Friday, calling it an embarrassment and saying it exposes the state to nationwide ridicule. "As a Christian, a trained engineer and scientist, and a professor at Emory University, I am embarrassed by Superintendent Kathy Cox's attempt to censor and distort the education of Georgia's students," Carter said in a statement.

[Achilleez]

Booooo Kathy Cox

[Twocubdad]

I have a couple of questions for those of you who would support the law mentioned in the original post: Do you agree with the Kansas law that (according to Acco's original post) requires a disclaimer anytime any science is mentioned which is contrary to creationist theory? Or would you be satisfied with creation being taught only when evolution per se is mentioned?

 

Secondly, would approve of other creation stories from other faiths/traditions being taught along with the story of Genesis? By the way, I ran a Google search on "Creation Stories" and got 3.16 million hits.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[Proud Eagle]

This is probably go to offend someone, but from my perspective that is more their problem than mine.

 

If you want evolution thrown out of science class you are nuts. If you want a lengthy teaching about the Judeao-Christian creation story and the possibility that it happened exactly as the Bible says, along with all the evidence against evolution, in a science class, you are also a nut.

 

Evolution (and the big bang as well) should be taught in the context of a proper understanding of the scientific method and the difference between scientific law and scientific theory. It would be appropriate to also mention when teaching these subjects that some people support the idea/theory that an intelligent higher power designed/created the universe and life. It would only take a single sentence, or a paragraph at most, to satisfy me. It would not be inappropriate for a text to touch on the reasons evolution and big bang are theories, but if the students understand the scientific method and what theories are, they should be able to figure that out on their own.

[firstpusk]

Proud Eagle,

 

I agree that teaching creationism is not going to fly as an official policy. However, it is frequently taught in public school classrooms. I know of several instances where teachers have dismissed evolution and taught creationist arguments to my child.

 

Interestingly enough, it was not in science but in math class. He was coaching the fundamentalist kids on arguments to use in biology class. It is quite common for local preachers or youth ministers to do the same. Parents will also press teachers so that they feel a need to accomodate such beliefs.

 

Teachers that I know have been faced with intimidation, i.e., loss of tenure, shunning and late night obscene phone calls for not being creation friendly. Teachers understand that many of their students fell threatened by evolution, yet their job is to teach them the science they will need to cope with the world they will live in.

 

Evolution has occurred and continues. That is a fact that cannot be disputed unless one willfully ignores the evidence. However, the truth of evolution does not deny the existence of God. I have been called a pagan by anti-evolution activists because I defend the teaching of science only in public school classrooms. I have been called a liar by scouters on this board because I accept the truth of evolution and defend it and my belief in God.

 

Teaching intelligent design is only the first step toward removing evolution from the classroom. Those behind the campaigns in MO and GA have tried to do the same in my home state of Minnesota. It looks like we may stop them this time. But they don't ever seem to quit, even though teaching creationism in public school science classrooms is illegal.