How to Slam Dunk Creationists on Evolution

[Machiavelli]

Paul Braterman
RealClearScience
August 3, 2017

The 2001 discovery of the seven million-year-old Sahelanthropus, the first known upright ape-like creatures, was yet more proof of humanity’s place among the great apes. And yet Mike Pence, then a representative and now US vice president, argues for the opposite conclusion.

For him, our ideas about our ancestors have changed, proving once more that evolution was a theory, and therefore we should be free to teach other theories alongside evolution in our classrooms.

How to respond? The usual answer is that we should teach students the meaning of the word “theory” as used in science – that is, a hypothesis (or idea) that has stood up to repeated testing. Pence’s argument will then be exposed to be what philosophers call an equivocation – an argument that only seems to make sense because the same word is being used in two different senses.

Just words

Evolution, Pence argues, is a theory, theories are uncertain, therefore evolution is uncertain. But evolution is a theory only in the scientific sense of the word. And in the words of the National Academy of Sciences, “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” Attaching this label to evolution is an indicator of strength, not weakness.

More

[Machiavelli]

If you think this thread belongs elsewhere (such as Opinion), please feel free to move it.  ^-^

[the_doc]

Most people know very little about the evidence for and against the theory of evolution.  It reminds me of the debate over AGW.  (Settled science?  Consensus of all well-informed scientists?)

[Sanguine]

Most people know very little about the evidence for and against the theory of evolution.  It reminds me of the debate over AGW.  (Settled science?  Consensus of all well-informed scientists?)

Yes, you don't have to be a creationist to misunderstand science.  Many of those AGW "scientists" seem to be confused about the issue.

Modified to add:  actually "creationist" is not a good descriptor.  I'm a creationist.  I know God created all that there is.  It's the when and how that is at question.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Yes, you don't have to be a creationist to misunderstand science.  Many of those AGW "scientists" seem to be confused about the issue.

Modified to add:  actually "creationist" is not a good descriptor.  I'm a creationist.  I know God created all that there is.  It's the when and how that is at question.

My wife and I went to the Creation Museum in Kentucky - wonderful experience that lays out well how we got where we are.  They just finished opening the full-size replica of Noah's Ark too.

Have you been to the Texas Creation Museum in Glen Rose?  Have been thinking to make that trip as well.

[Sanguine]

My wife and I went to the Creation Museum in Kentucky - wonderful experience that lays out well how we got where we are.  They just finished opening the full-size replica of Noah's Ark too.

Have you been to the Texas Creation Museum in Glen Rose?  Have been thinking to make that trip as well.

Yes, I thought I may not have made that clear.  To expand, I have no problem with TOE and, based upon available evidence, believe it to be the method that our Creator used to create things.  And, I believe, based on the Bible and physical evidence, that it took a long, long time.  Billions of years in fact. 

Sorry for any confusion.

I have spent time in Glenrose and love that area. 

[Mom MD]

Yes, you don't have to be a creationist to misunderstand science.  Many of those AGW "scientists" seem to be confused about the issue.

Modified to add:  actually "creationist" is not a good descriptor.  I'm a creationist.  I know God created all that there is.  It's the when and how that is at question.

Evolution is every bit as scientific as global warming.  Just because you can get a bunch of scientists to sing in a choir does not mean they are right.  Show me one incidence of an intermediate form between species.  Show me one incidence of evolution working in front of our eyes to create a new species.  I have a degree in biology and some of the junk we were taught 35 years ago such as entogeny recapitulates phylogeny has already been disproven as junk.  It is interesting how the masses will take what they are spoonfed with out question because a "scientist" says so and science is never wrong   

[Sanguine]

Evolution is every bit as scientific as global warming.  Just because you can get a bunch of scientists to sing in a choir does not mean they are right.  Show me one incidence of an intermediate form between species.  Show me one incidence of evolution working in front of our eyes to create a new species.  I have a degree in biology and some of the junk we were taught 35 years ago such as entogeny recapitulates phylogeny has already been disproven as junk.  It is interesting how the masses will take what they are spoonfed with out question because a "scientist" says so and science is never wrong   

But, that's not how the theory works.  And, I'm not going to argue it here.  Those who have chosen to take a hard position on it are not generally open to a discussion.  I am not going to challenge you on your belief or treat you with contempt for believing so.  I'd appreciate the same.

[Restored]

It's interesting to watch people argue about something that happened so long ago that it is impossible to prove anything.

[Oceander]

It's amazing how afraid people are of the possibility that perhaps God is just a little more sophisticated than they can imagine and acted in the most subtle and ingenious way by using evolution as the means of creating the universe.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It's amazing how afraid people are of the possibility that perhaps God is just a little more sophisticated than they can imagine and acted in the most subtle and ingenious way by using evolution as the means of creating the universe.

You use the word 'afraid'.

Where did you get that from?  Certainly not from this thread.

[Oceander]

You use the word 'afraid'.

Where did you get that from?  Certainly not from this thread.

Anyone who espouses creationism is clearly afraid of the possibility that God might be smarter and more imaginative than they are, else they wouldn't try to tie Him down to a theory that is so flatly inconsistent with the world - the facts - that God Himself created. 

[ShadowAce]

The problem is that it's only a theory if it can be falsifiable. It is not.  Evolution does not meet the minimum standards of the term "theory."

It cannot be tested.  It cannot be observed (as stated).  It's an idea, a dogma, a religion in its own right.

[Mom MD]

But, that's not how the theory works.  And, I'm not going to argue it here.  Those who have chosen to take a hard position on it are not generally open to a discussion.  I am not going to challenge you on your belief or treat you with contempt for believing so.  I'd appreciate the same.

It is not my intention to ever treat anyone with contempt and of course you can interpret the data any way you wish. I hope you do not think I was being contemptuous, I recognize reasonable adults can disagree.  What bothers me is a group of scientists with a mission (disproving God, proving global warming etc) can start a culture of politically correct thinking around their belief system with very little hard proof, then ostracize and belittle those who dont join the cult.

If "scientists" are honest, much of what I was taught in medicine in school 35 years ago has since proven incomplete or frankly untrue.  There is very little "settled science" and those who do not go with the popular culture of the day are neither ignorant nor uneducated.

Scientific culture tends to be a bully system much like the judicial system in this country.  And I am more than happy to discuss science with anyone.  You will not change my mind on my religious beliefs and you are unlikely to change my mind on how I interpret the available data, but I am always willing to discuss.  That is how I learn and sharpen my beliefs.

@Sanguine

[Oceander]

It is not my intention to ever treat anyone with contempt and of course you can interpret the data any way you wish. I hope you do not think I was being contemptuous, I recognize reasonable adults can disagree.  What bothers me is a group of scientists with a mission (disproving God, proving global warming etc) can start a culture of politically correct thinking around their belief system with very little hard proof, then ostracize and belittle those who dont join the cult.

If "scientists" are honest, much of what I was taught in medicine in school 35 years ago has since proven incomplete or frankly untrue.  There is very little "settled science" and those who do not go with the popular culture of the day are neither ignorant or uneducated.

Scientific culture tends to be a bully system much like the judicial system in this country.  And I am more than happy to discuss science with anyone.  You will not change my mind on my religious beliefs and you are unlikely to change my mind on how I interpret the available data, but I am always willing to discuss.  That is how I learn and sharpen my beliefs.

@Sanguine

The essence of a scientific theory is that it is falsifiable, and on that score Creationism fails miserably.  It is nothing more than an unscientific article of faith amongst those too scared to look God's universe in the face and see it for what it is.   

[Oceander]

The problem is that it's only a theory if it can be falsifiable. It is not.  Evolution does not meet the minimum standards of the term "theory."

It cannot be tested.  It cannot be observed (as stated).  It's an idea, a dogma, a religion in its own right.

It certainly can.  And has. 

It also, for all its flaws, provides a lot more explanatory power than the fable of creationism, which is flatly inconsistent with the facts of the world, as made by God. 

[Mom MD]

Anyone who espouses creationism is clearly afraid of the possibility that God might be smarter and more imaginative than they are, else they wouldn't try to tie Him down to a theory that is so flatly inconsistent with the world - the facts - that God Himself created.

You could prove without a shadow of a doubt tomorrow evolution was true and it would shake my faith in God not at all.  However I have spent a good many years getting to know both my God and learning science, and I firmly espouse creationism.  God is not limited by my feeble imagination.  Argue the facts all you want, but please do not think all creationists are afraid, uneducated or ignorant.

[Sanguine]

It is not my intention to ever treat anyone with contempt and of course you can interpret the data any way you wish. I hope you do not think I was being contemptuous, I recognize reasonable adults can disagree.  What bothers me is a group of scientists with a mission (disproving God, proving global warming etc) can start a culture of politically correct thinking around their belief system with very little hard proof, then ostracize and belittle those who dont join the cult.

If "scientists" are honest, much of what I was taught in medicine in school 35 years ago has since proven incomplete or frankly untrue.  There is very little "settled science" and those who do not go with the popular culture of the day are neither ignorant or uneducated.

Scientific culture tends to be a bully system much like the judicial system in this country.  And I am more than happy to discuss science with anyone.  You will not change my mind on my religious beliefs and you are unlikely to change my mind on how I interpret the available data, but I am always willing to discuss.  That is how I learn and sharpen my beliefs.

@Sanguine

Was that a strawman or a red herring or a bit of both?

I didn't use the term "settled science" and on the few occasions I do, it is to point out that science is never fully settled. 

Just because some people misuse the Bible does not mean it is wrong and because some people misuse science does not make it wrong either.  And, that's what I really object to with anti-science people and with anti-Christian people both. 

[ShadowAce]

It certainly can.  And has. 

It also, for all its flaws, provides a lot more explanatory power than the fable of creationism, which is flatly inconsistent with the facts of the world, as made by God.

No, it cannot, and it has not.  Adaptation within a species has been observed, evolution into different species has not.

[Mom MD]

The essence of a scientific theory is that it is falsifiable, and on that score Creationism fails miserably.  It is nothing more than an unscientific article of faith amongst those too scared to look God's universe in the face and see it for what it is.

I see the universe in all its wonder, and deeply study the human body.  I am afraid of nothing.  The scientific evidence in the Bible is actually pretty good if you open your eyes and are not afraid to encounter a personal God.  Moses (or whoever wrote Genesis) knew that light was created before the sun and stars.  Job knew that the earth was a orb suspended in space long before scientists stumbled on that fact.

I am convinced the universe and all in it (including humans) were personally and intimately created by a loving God, not an accident of evolution that got started off and stood back from.  Your mileage may vary.  But stop with the being afraid stuff.

[Mom MD]

No, it cannot, and it has not.  Adaptation within a species has been observed, evolution into different species has not.

 

[Mom MD]

Was that a strawman or a red herring or a bit of both?

I didn't use the term "settled science" and on the few occasions I do, it is to point out that science is never fully settled. 

Just because some people misuse the Bible does not mean it is wrong and because some people misuse science does not make it wrong either.  And, that's what I really object to with anti-science people and with anti-Christian people both.

And therein lies the problem. One does not have to be anti science to be Christian or anti Christian to be a scientist.  But all can have respectful discourse.

[truth_seeker]

You could prove without a shadow of a doubt tomorrow evolution was true and it would shake my faith in God not at all.  However I have spent a good many years getting to know both my God and learning science, and I firmly espouse creationism.  God is not limited by my feeble imagination.  Argue the facts all you want, but please do not think all creationists are afraid, uneducated or ignorant.

Do you subscribe to the version of 6,000 years ago, per hardliners?

[Sanguine]

And therein lies the problem. One does not have to be anti science to be Christian or anti Christian to be a scientist.  But all can have respectful discourse.

Good.  We agree.   

[Oceander]

No, it cannot, and it has not.  Adaptation within a species has been observed, evolution into different species has not.

The mechanisms necessary have been shown to exist and to work.  Creationism cannot say the same.