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.

[ShadowAce]

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

Yeah?  What mechanism has been shown to exist that adds information to DNA?

[Oceander]

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.

You see nothing.  You limit God to what you can imagine.  Why is it not possible for a being as great as God - the greatest of all - to have lovingly created the universe in a manner that, when seen from within, appears as a random act the those who are the created?   

Instead, you espouse a baby's tale that requires God to have waved a magic wand every time a new creature shows up in the fossil record.  Your fable requires a constant series of acts of creation by God every minute of every day.  How is that not evolution?   But you deny the very facts God sets before you because you cannot accept that God must have done it some way that is outside your weak imagination. 

That, or you espouse a single act of creation, without any follow ups to account for new creatures, which is flatly inconsistent with the facts God has left us. 

[Oceander]

Yeah?  What mechanism has been shown to exist that adds information to DNA?

Mutation and duplication. 

[ShadowAce]

Mutation and duplication.

Do you know the definition of the word "duplication?"  It does not add anything to DNA.

As far as mutation goes, what form of mutation that we have observed (outside of movies) is beneficial?

[Oceander]

Do you know the definition of the word "duplication?"  It does not add anything to DNA.

As far as mutation goes, what form of mutation that we have observed (outside of movies) is beneficial?

Put the two together and you have a new addition to an existing DNA strand.  Or is even that too difficult for you to imagine?

[truth_seeker]

Do you know the definition of the word "duplication?"  It does not add anything to DNA.

As far as mutation goes, what form of mutation that we have observed (outside of movies) is beneficial?

You do know that scientists have been studying for decades, looking for ways to treat diseases, etc.?

In the last week, an gene "edit" was performed medically to treat a patient.

The uses of DNA  appear to be well advanced, beyond your present knowledge.

The science of DNA is so well "settled," as to be used in evidence to convict and exonerate suspects in capital crimes, and to establish paternity.

DNA is very solid science. But some still cling to Rev. Benny Hinn, for his "science."

[ShadowAce]

You do know that scientists have been studying for decades, looking for ways to treat diseases, etc.?

In the last week, an gene "edit" was performed medically to treat a patient.

The uses of DNA  appear to be well advanced, beyond your present knowledge.

The science of DNA is so well "settled," as to be used in evidence to convict and exonerate suspects in capital crimes, and to establish paternity.

DNA is very solid science. But some still cling to Rev. Benny Hinn, for his "science."

hmm.  So you are saying that edits to genes are beneficial--and yes, I have seen the news.

That doesn't sound like mutation, or chance, or some unthinking natural selection process.  It does sound like an intelligence designed the process, determined the specific chromosomes to edit and actually performed the work.

Now--do the same thing without any intelligence guiding the process in an environment similar to the highly toxic one we supposedly had shortly before life "evolved."

[the_doc]

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   

That was my point.  Most laymen who believe in AGW are just intimidated by mainstream scientists.  Most laymen (and weak-minded scientists) look at the reputedly overwhelming evidence for CO2 warming.  In my opinion, there is no evidence whatsoever.  (Surprise, surprise!)

[truth_seeker]

hmm.  So you are saying that edits to genes are beneficial--and yes, I have seen the news.

That doesn't sound like mutation, or chance, or some unthinking natural selection process.  It does sound like an intelligence designed the process, determined the specific chromosomes to edit and actually performed the work.

Now--do the same thing without any intelligence guiding the process in an environment similar to the highly toxic one we supposedly had shortly before life "evolved."

I take it that you credit God with making us intelligent enough, to begin learning the "science" of his Creation. If so, many that value science would agree.

[LilLamb]

I think a simple explanation is that God could have used materials from previous worlds to make our world. Everything they find might be as old as they think it is, only it came from a world that predates ours.

[Mom MD]

You do know that scientists have been studying for decades, looking for ways to treat diseases, etc.?

In the last week, an gene "edit" was performed medically to treat a patient.

The uses of DNA  appear to be well advanced, beyond your present knowledge.

The science of DNA is so well "settled," as to be used in evidence to convict and exonerate suspects in capital crimes, and to establish paternity.

DNA is very solid science. But some still cling to Rev. Benny Hinn, for his "science."

Yes DNA is solid science.  And most Christians will shun Benny Hinn more thoroughly than you do.  Dont try to paint us with that brush.  Science and religion can coexist.  In fact we need religion or at least a well developed ethical system to put some boundaries around science.  Just because you can do something, does not mean that you should or that it is a good idea.

[Mom MD]

I think a simple explanation is that God could have used materials from previous worlds to make our world. Everything they find might be as old as they think it is, only it came from a world that predates ours.

Or God could have made the world all grown up.  Adam and Eve were created as full grown adults, not embryos.  But the Bible is silent on what happened before creation, although there are tantalizing hints that the world/universe may have existed in a markedly different form before the fall of Lucifer and his angels....

[Mom MD]

You see nothing.  You limit God to what you can imagine.  Why is it not possible for a being as great as God - the greatest of all - to have lovingly created the universe in a manner that, when seen from within, appears as a random act the those who are the created?   

Instead, you espouse a baby's tale that requires God to have waved a magic wand every time a new creature shows up in the fossil record.  Your fable requires a constant series of acts of creation by God every minute of every day.  How is that not evolution?   But you deny the very facts God sets before you because you cannot accept that God must have done it some way that is outside your weak imagination. 

That, or you espouse a single act of creation, without any follow ups to account for new creatures, which is flatly inconsistent with the facts God has left us.

While I overall appreciate being called weak and lacking in imagination, its been a stimulating conversation. When you get over belittling others because we are not intelligent as you maybe we can talk again.  I believe it is you who limits God, and no one denies a stepwise creation as laid out in the Bible.  I do not wish to renew the crevo wars from TOS, I was hoping people could discuss this in a civil matter here, but apparently not for some.  When you meet the God of my fable, I hope it goes well with you.

[Mom MD]

Yeah?  What mechanism has been shown to exist that adds information to DNA?

@ShadowAce

and adds information to DNA in a beneficial not destructive way.  I have never understood how those who know so much about science think evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are compatible.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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.

So let me get this straight:  If I differ from you on anything, I am 'afraid'?

By the same token, you must be 'afraid' of whatever I say that differs from your own rationale.

Do you see yet how ridiculous that sounds? 

And BTW, we cannot pretend to know God's ways, no matter how smart you or anyone else thinks.

The closest we have is within the book He gave us.

[Oceander]

So let me get this straight:  If I differ from you on anything, I am 'afraid'?

By the same token, you must be 'afraid' of whatever I say that differs from your own rationale.

Do you see yet how ridiculous that sounds? 

And BTW, we cannot pretend to know God's ways, no matter how smart you or anyone else thinks.

The closest we have is within the book He gave us.

Absolutely not.  It has nothing to do with whether you disagree with me and everything to do with the fact that you adhere to a clearly nonsensical theory, a radically nonsensical theory that in fact is denied by the very creation God made. 

[Oceander]

@ShadowAce

and adds information to DNA in a beneficial not destructive way.  I have never understood how those who know so much about science think evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are compatible.

Which simply shows that you know nothing about the laws of thermodynamics. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Absolutely not.  It has nothing to do with whether you disagree with me and everything to do with the fact that you adhere to a clearly nonsensical theory, a radically nonsensical theory that in fact is denied by the very creation God made.

So only those who disagree with you are afraid?  Must be a lot of people afraid out there.....

[Bigun]

God is God!  He could turn an Ostrich into an Elephant IF he wanted to but why would he do that since he created both in the first place.