Should Creationism be taught in classrooms?

[otseng]

Should Creationism be taught in classrooms (as science)?
More specifically, should it be taught in public schools?
If so, how should it be taught as a science?

[Jose]

So belief is foundational to religion. I agree. Evolutionists believe that lifeless matter formed life. Is that not a religious belief in the absence of any proof?

No, it is not a religious belief. It is not even a belief. Scientists conclude that this is what happened, because the data that are present for all to see in God's Creation offer no clues that anything else happened. If there were clues that something else happened, then scientists would conclude differently. It's not a "belief," it's inference from the available evidence.

BTW, ICR has published a book on the Grand Canyon and why they believe it was formed by a catastrophic flood. The research is scholarly and scientific. One may disagree, but they are entitled to be heard. I wish you could see this book. You have to be a PHD to understand it.

The problem with the book is that it ignores much of the data that exist in the world. It describes the ICR's idea of what might have happened, but since that idea doesn't fit the data that exist in God's creation, we have to rule the idea out as a reasonable explanation. Now, if they were to account for all of the data, and let the data drive the interpretation, rather than filter the data to fit a pre-conceived interpretation, then they might be more scientific. As it is, they are not.

The big one is the fossil record. Many evolutionists are saying that it does not support the gradual evolving of species over millions of years. Creationists have been saying this all along. Why aren't they given credit for this in the classrooms? Gould, Eldredge and others have seen the poverty of gradualism and have jumped on the punctuated equilibrium band wagon.

We should, perhaps, investigate a couple of your "teachings" that you mention above. We could start with the "teaching" that there are no transitional fossils. How would you support this idea with evidence? I maintain that you would have to change the definition of "transitional fossil" in order to make this claim.

Transition meaning where one specie evolves into a different specie ( invertebrates to vertebrates, dinosaurs into birds, monkeys into men, fish into reptile, etc. )

Creationists aren't given credit for saying evolution isn't gradual because they've been saying evolution isn't possible at all. They have not been saying what the fossil record does show. Merely to say that the fossil record doesn't show something, but provide no evidence and no alternative, is not science.

Where does the idea of gradualism come from? It was the prevailing idea about evolution before Darwin provided a possible mechanism. It was an idea based on the available evidence at the time--which was rather limited, compared to what now exists. With few fossils, it seemed reasonable to infer that changes were gradual.

What Eldredge and Gould did was look at the fossil record in greater detail, with a vastly larger sample. What did they find? They found that, over the long term, changes have been gradual. Over the shorter term, there have been periods of change and periods of relatively little change. Once they pointed this out, other evolutionary biologists rethought the notion of gradual change. But, even with punctuated equilibrium, there is, of course, still the question of the time scale of the periods of change. The time scale is still immense. We're talking hundreds of generations, or thousands of generations. Even though this may be a period of rapid change in geological time, it is still gradual on the time-scale of the individual organisms that participated in it.

The difference between these guys and the creationists is that Eldredge and Gould used evidence to drive their understanding; creationists use the idea of creation to drive their selection of evidence.

Now, to your last point above: the definition of "transitional fossil." You have been too brief for me to understand what you mean. A fossil is the solidified remains of one individual, not a species. A species is a collection of individuals, and therefore, cannot be collected as a single fossil. So, can you give me another description of what you mean when you say "transitional fossil"?

The fossil record fails to produce transitionals between species. That is the conclusion of the creation scientists. Whether they are right or not, is not the issue. They should be heard based on the evidence they produce. The same applies to abiogenesis. There is no evidence that shows lifeless matter created life. To the contrary, all the evidence to date suggests it is not possible. Students should know this.

It doesn't matter whether they are right? What silliness is this? You want us to teach things that are wrong? But we'll set that issue aside, and address your fundamental point: that they should be heard based on the evidence that they produce. OK...what evidence is this? They say they can't find transitional fossils. Scientists say they have found very, very many transitional fossils. Maybe the best interpretation is that the creationists don't know what transitional fossils are, or how to recognize them, or maybe they didn't even look. Not looking would explain not finding them, after all. Failure to find something does not prove that the something doesn't exist. This is a basic principle of science.

The same, as you say, applies to abiogenesis. Humans have been unable to create life from chemicals. We don't know how. But, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Indeed, the recent publication of the "molecular midwife" puts us a step closer to understanding some of the chemistry by which it would be possible. For creationists to say "it isn't possible" doesn't make it impossible. That's not science.

So, we're back to the beginning. How can you put forward your creationism ideas scientifically?

You sure you wish to take your biology from a book that says bats are birds?

...or your medical advice from a book that says the heart, not the brain, is the center of reason?

[Daystar]

So belief is foundational to religion. I agree. Evolutionists believe that lifeless matter formed life. Is that not a religious belief in the absence of any proof?

No, it is not a religious belief. It is not even a belief. Scientists conclude that this is what happened, because the data that are present for all to see in God's Creation offer no clues that anything else happened.

[Day] In the absence of any proof, is it not possible that a Creator made everything? If that were so, creation IS the evidence.

If there were clues that something else happened, then scientists would conclude differently. It's not a "belief," it's inference from the available evidence.

[Day] Well, how about "faith" in that's what happened?

BTW, ICR has published a book on the Grand Canyon and why they believe it was formed by a catastrophic flood. The research is scholarly and scientific. One may disagree, but they are entitled to be heard. I wish you could see this book. You have to be a PHD to understand it.

The problem with the book is that it ignores much of the data that exist in the world.

[Day] It does? How do you know? You don't even know the book I'm talking about.

It describes the ICR's idea of what might have happened, but since that idea doesn't fit the data that exist in God's creation, we have to rule the idea out as a reasonable explanation. Now, if they were to account for all of the data, and let the data drive the interpretation, rather than filter the data to fit a pre-conceived interpretation, then they might be more scientific. As it is, they are not.

[Day] Do you believe that you have taken a scientific approach by assuming the book, which you haven't read, doesn't have evidence for a global flood? Perhaps the scientific community has overlooked some of the points made by ICR's book. Is that possible? After all, it was the creationists who showed the world that Darwinian evolution (gradualism) was wrong (Even Darwin had doubts before he died). Why shouldn't they at least be heard about the Grand Canyon? BTW, did you know they are trying to censor a book from the book store at the Grand Canyon that presents the creationist perspective?

The big one is the fossil record. Many evolutionists are saying that it does not support the gradual evolving of species over millions of years. Creationists have been saying this all along. Why aren't they given credit for this in the classrooms? Gould, Eldredge and others have seen the poverty of gradualism and have jumped on the punctuated equilibrium band wagon.

We should, perhaps, investigate a couple of your "teachings" that you mention above. We could start with the "teaching" that there are no transitional fossils. How would you support this idea with evidence? I maintain that you would have to change the definition of "transitional fossil" in order to make this claim.

[Day] You keep asking how I would support this or that teaching. What better "teaching" is there than to cite evolutionists who have seen the light about gradualism? I would then show students that what was once thought of as a transitional, was a variation within a specie, or similarities between species. But it is from evolutionists themselves who speak the loudest and most accurate about gradualism.

Transition meaning where one specie evolves into a different specie ( invertebrates to vertebrates, dinosaurs into birds, monkeys into men, fish into reptile, etc. )

Creationists aren't given credit for saying evolution isn't gradual because they've been saying evolution isn't possible at all.

[Day] Of course, but they are willing to enter the fray at the level evolutionists are at. This is necessary to qualify their position and expose the fallacies of gradualism.

They have not been saying what the fossil record does show. Merely to say that the fossil record doesn't show something, but provide no evidence and no alternative, is not science.

[Day] No alternative? The only one is special creation as they have been saying all along. Don't forget, it's eovlutionists who are saying that gradualism is out. Creationists can sit back, reap the whirlwind and win converts to creation

Where does the idea of gradualism come from? It was the prevailing idea about evolution before Darwin provided a possible mechanism. It was an idea based on the available evidence at the time--which was rather limited, compared to what now exists. With few fossils, it seemed reasonable to infer that changes were gradual.

[Day] Where gradualism came from pales in comparison to where it is today. As I mentioned once before, the late Senior Paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History is on record as stating that he knew of no transitional fossils for which an air tight case could be made. He made this statement before a group of scientists.

What Eldredge and Gould did was look at the fossil record in greater detail, with a vastly larger sample. What did they find? They found that, over the long term, changes have been gradual. Over the shorter term, there have been periods of change and periods of relatively little change. Once they pointed this out, other evolutionary biologists rethought the notion of gradual change. But, even with punctuated equilibrium, there is, of course, still the question of the time scale of the periods of change. The time scale is still immense. We're talking hundreds of generations, or thousands of generations.

[Day] You see, of course, that the "hero" of evoluton is father time. ICR is going to rattle some cages in their upcoming report on isotopes, haloes and decay rates. The evolutionary community at large will of course cry fowl, but it will be interesting to see how. This report will be peer reviewed at all levels.

Even though this may be a period of rapid change in geological time, it is still gradual on the time-scale of the individual organisms that participated in it.

[Day] Gradualism was more predicated on the creature's morphology, not time span.

The difference between these guys and the creationists is that Eldredge and Gould used evidence to drive their understanding; creationists use the idea of creation to drive their selection of evidence.

[Day] Like I said, by exposing the poverty of the fossil record, they have the door open to the only alternative: Special creation and intelligent design. What do you think about that humming bird? Do you know of any fossils that reveal its evolution? And how about the incredible bat?

Now, to your last point above: the definition of "transitional fossil." You have been too brief for me to understand what you mean. A fossil is the solidified remains of one individual, not a species. A species is a collection of individuals, and therefore, cannot be collected as a single fossil. So, can you give me another description of what you mean when you say "transitional fossil"?

[Day] Dinosaur to bird, invertebrate to vertebrate, fish to reptile, monkey to man. These are major species and if evolution is true, there should untold billions of "in-between" (transitional) fossils.

BTW, speaking of dinosaurs, are you aware that scientists are finding protein in their fossilized bones? How can this be? If they were destroyed 65 million years ago, that protein should have been mineralized millions of years ago.

The fossil record fails to produce transitionals between species. That is the conclusion of the creation scientists. Whether they are right or not, is not the issue. They should be heard based on the evidence they produce. The same applies to abiogenesis. There is no evidence that shows lifeless matter created life. To the contrary, all the evidence to date suggests it is not possible. Students should know this.

It doesn't matter whether they are right? What silliness is this? You want us to teach things that are wrong?

[Day] My error. That was not the righ thing to say. My basic point is that the creationists should be heard if their science has been good.

But we'll set that issue aside, and address your fundamental point: that they should be heard based on the evidence that they produce. OK...what evidence is this? They say they can't find transitional fossils. Scientists say they have found very, very many transitional fossils.

[Day] This simply is not true. There is not a large number of evolutionists making this claims of creatures gradually evolving. Gould, Eldredge, Patterson, Raup, Pilbeam, are just a few of the more renowned.

Maybe the best interpretation is that the creationists don't know what transitional fossils are, or how to recognize them, or maybe they didn't even look.

[Day] Once again, I emphacize that they have always claimed was has been proven to be true: "And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds." (Gen. 1:24) Some will say that God created the original kinds and then let evolution take over. This is silly because God created fish, fowl and cattle, and we still have fish, fowl and cattle.

Not looking would explain not finding them, after all. Failure to find something does not prove that the something doesn't exist. This is a basic principle of science.

[Day] "Always learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim. 3:7)

The same, as you say, applies to abiogenesis. Humans have been unable to create life from chemicals. We don't know how. But, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Day] "Always learning......"

Indeed, the recent publication of the "molecular midwife" puts us a step closer to understanding some of the chemistry by which it would be possible.

[Day] If life is produced in a test tube, I will burn my Bible, resign from my church and try to get my tithes back The Bible is clear that God creates life, not matter. Such an experiment would be devastating to the scriptures. Chemicals can "sustain" life, but not create it.

For creationists to say "it isn't possible" doesn't make it impossible. That's not science.

[Day] I know. It's faith

So, we're back to the beginning. How can you put forward your creationism ideas scientifically?

[Day] By keep shooting holes in evolutionary theory. We have won the fossil issue, are right so far with abiogenesis and have excellant science to show that that Grand Canyon experienced a catastrophic deluge, not local flooding over millions of years. the next horizon will by the helium diffusion issue. This will be a hot one....wait and see. The diffusion rate of helium from rocks prove that the earth is very young. You may want to do some research on Robert Gentry and polonium haloes.

You sure you wish to take your biology from a book that says bats are birds?

...]

[Day] Did is say that? Shame on me

or your medical advice from a book that says the heart, not the brain, is the center of reason?

[Day] Heart is symbolic of where a person is at. Of course, his mind has everything to do with that.

[otseng]

Day, another thing, if you do quote someone, please only quote the relevant part of the quote that you are responding to. Delete all the other parts so that quotes aren't so large. Thanks.

[Jose]

Ah, Day...you keep using the same, basic logic. As near as I can tell, you're basically saying that the Bible is right, regardless of the features of the world itself. Of course, you are entitled to that opinion, but it's not scientific. (And, of course, if the world were all science geeks like me, we'd be in sad shape.)

In the absence of any proof, is it not possible that a Creator made everything?

it is possible that the Creator made everything exactly to look like it is old, and that evolution happened exactly as science concludes that it did. It is also possible, as Lu Tze says, that the Creator re-creates the world every moment. These are things we can never prove nor disprove, but they are possible. We'll never know. In the absence of any possible test, I'll put my money on science: look at the evidence that is in the world that exists, and use our logical powers to figure out how the natural processes that now exist could have given rise to the natural features that we see.

Do you believe that you have taken a scientific approach by assuming the book, which you haven't read, doesn't have evidence for a global flood? Perhaps the scientific community has overlooked some of the points made by ICR's book. Is that possible? After all, it was the creationists who showed the world that Darwinian evolution (gradualism) was wrong (Even Darwin had doubts before he died). Why shouldn't they at least be heard about the Grand Canyon? BTW, did you know they are trying to censor a book from the book store at the Grand Canyon that presents the creationist perspective?

I apologize. I haven't read the specific book...but I've read enough of ICR's flood geology stuff to know whereof I speak. They omit data from other parts of the world, and they omit data from within the canyon itself.
As for the censorship idea, it's not strictly true. There is no interest in censoring the book--just not selling it in the section called Science. It's fine to sell it in the section called Religion.

You keep asking how I would support this or that teaching. What better "teaching" is there than to cite evolutionists who have seen the light about gradualism? I would then show students that what was once thought of as a transitional, was a variation within a specie, or similarities between species. But it is from evolutionists themselves who speak the loudest and most accurate about gradualism.

Herein lies the difference between science and religion. Evolutionists themselves are trying to advance our understanding of how evolution works. If Darwin's original version of gradualism is ruled out on the basis of new data, great. Throw out the old version, and replace it with a version that is more accurate. This is just what has been done. It is therefore a charade for creationists to say that evolution is wrong because gradualism is wrong, and therefore creationism is right. They should be saying that a very old model has been updated to be more accurate, and now the model explains even more data than it did before.

As for "transitional fossils" being merely variation within a species, and

: "And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds." (Gen. 1:24)

this is how evolution works. Everything has, and always will reproduce according to its kind. Similarly, DNA has, does, and must suffer mutations, because that's how DNA chemistry works. Therefore, every organism reproducing according to its kind will always produce kinds that are slightly different, due to the mutations. If environmental conditions kill off all of the original ones, leaving only the ones with the mutation, then we have a variation of the species. If this happens often, as it must over many generations, we have no choice but to end up with a species that doesn't quite look like it did before. Eventually, it may be different enough to be a new species...or a new genus...or a new family. And all of this even as the individual organisms reproduced according to their kind.

A transitional fossil, according to the evolutionarily and biologically correct definition, is a fossil that shows characteristics of both ancestor and descendent.

Dinosaur to bird, invertebrate to vertebrate, fish to reptile, monkey to man. These are major species and if evolution is true, there should untold billions of "in-between" (transitional) fossils.

There probably are untold billions, but humans will never find them all. Nonetheless, the potential number isn't helpful. The important number is the number that have been found. There turn out to be a very large number of intermediates between lobe-finned fish and amphibians (I'll choose amphibians rather than reptiles because that's the important transition that I think you mean). I don't recall the exact number, but it's enough to provide evidence for many intermediates. Many are from Greenland, where a particularly rich fossil assemblage has been examined over the years. There are probably fewer of dinosaur to bird, and fewer still of "monkey" to human--but there are still those that exist.

Your "transitional fossil" argument has two problems. One, which is actually very clever on your side, is that for every transitional fossil that is produced, you can come back and say that there are two more that we don't have. That is, if we have fossil A and Z, you say "you have no transitioinal fossils between A and Z." So, we find fossil M, and you say, "you have no transitional fossils between A and M or between M and Z. You're worse off than you were before." So, we find fossils H and R, and you say "you have no transitional fossils between A and H, between H and M, between M and R, or between R and Z. You're even worse off." And so it goes. Your argument always wins, even if it's just by moving the goalposts at each step in the game.

Eventually, though, we come up against genetics. At each step, changes occurred by mutations in genes. Some mutations, affecting the regulation of important proteins that affect morphological development, cause changes that are easily visible. Individuals without the mutation look one way, individuals with the mutation look a different way. There will never be a transitional form between them because the transition is the single mutation itself. If you have both forms, you have the transition. Yet, you can still say "you have no transitional fossils." You would be correct in that we don't have such fossils, but incorrect in making any significance of it.

But, perhaps you mean something else by "transitional fossil." It is commonly presented by the creationists that a "transitional fossil" is an individual--let's say a fish--caught in the act of "mutating" to something else--let's say an amphibian. Such a fossil would be half fish, half amphibian. Certainly, such fossils do not exist. There is no reason that they should, because biology doesn't work that way. To tell people (as some creationists do...which I know from personal experience) that these are the transitional fossils that evolutionists cannot produce is misleading and, I would say, immoral. It is "bearing false witness" and pretending that something is true, when it is not.

This is why I've been asking for your definition of "transitional fossil." According to the real definition, many exist. According to the pretend definition, they don't exist...but they can't exist except by special creation, so it's a fake argument.

My error. That was not the righ thing to say. My basic point is that the creationists should be heard if their science has been good.

Thank you. Apology accepted. Your basic point is much more important than phrasing. I agree. They should be heard if their science has been good. Unfortunately, it has not. I've explained why before, but I'll summarize here so we don't have to go back through all the posts. They use a non-scientific method. They start with their conclusion, then look for data that are consistent with it. They ignore data that are inconsistent. This is not science. They need to account for the data, not ignore it. Until they do, they have no place in science classes--even if they speak very loudly about "flaws" in the existing models. They must prove their model to be better. They must show that it explains more data than the prevaling model. All they have done so far is show that there are a few data they can fit to their model.

For creationists to say "it isn't possible" doesn't make it impossible. That's not science.

I know. It's faith

Exactly. It should be in religion class, not science class.

So, the point here is NOT whether creation, or the Flood, should be discusssed in school. The question is whether it can be presented scientifically, and earn a position in science classes. The creationists have a long way to go.

...uhh...and listen to Otseng. Work on the quotes, so you can keep your posts in the format that everyone here is used to. It will make it easier to follow. I'm enjoying our exchanges, but as they get more complicated, correct quoting becomes more important.

[youngborean]

They start with their conclusion, then look for data that are consistent with it. They ignore data that are inconsistent. This is not science. They need to account for the data, not ignore it. Until they do, they have no place in science classes--even if they speak very loudly about "flaws" in the existing models. They must prove their model to be better. They must show that it explains more data than the prevaling model. All they have done so far is show that there are a few data they can fit to their model.

Are you saying that deductive reasoning isn't part of Science? That is silly. If a scientist didn't have their conclusion in mind then why do all scientists choose their results. Where is the Journal of No Result? That would be more scientific because we would have the whole picture. We don't because any Scientist has a vision of what they are looking for.

I would definitely state that above and beyond all science, evolutionary biology fits the model that you speak of. The assumptions were twofold from it's inception. The assumptions were as I see it
1.That evolution with speciazation explains variation.
2.That the Earth is really old because we are not witnessing rapid evolution with speciazation.

To me this separates evolutionary biology from the rest of Science, like chemistry, which builds evidence on evidence. But the tradition of Science is really difficult to separate from deductive reasoning. Because:

All knowledge of causes is deductive. --Glanvill. (forgive me for quoting a proponent of Witchcraft if you are Christian, it seems relavant)

[perfessor]

Are you saying that deductive reasoning isn't part of Science? That is silly. If a scientist didn't have their conclusion in mind then why do all scientists choose their results. Where is the Journal of No Result? That would be more scientific because we would have the whole picture. We don't because any Scientist has a vision of what they are looking for.

This doesn't make sense to me. Scientists don't choose their results - at least, not the good ones. An experiment which disproves the hypothesis is still a successful experiment. An experiment which yields "no result" is a failed experiment - or at least, a poorly designed one. That's why there is no Journal of No Result.

Also, a good scientist does not aim the experiment at a conclusion - this is classic bad science. It is a well-known axiom that you can prove almost anything, if you set out to prove it. This is not science.

The assumptions (for evolutionary biology) were twofold from it's inception. The assumptions were as I see it
1.That evolution with speciazation explains variation.
2.That the Earth is really old because we are not witnessing rapid evolution with speciazation.

For item 1, you may be close - I would say that variation with selection leads to speciation, which is evolution. Item 2 is way off base - I've never heard this from an evolutionary biologist before. We say that the earth is old because of a proponderance of evidence from geology, astronomy, paleontology, etc. - all of which yield results which are consistent with each other.

One of the difficulties with understanding evolution, is in grasping the mind-boggling time scales involved. I can remember events from last year, 10 years ago, 30 years ago (dimly) - how can one comprehend processes that span many thousand times longer than that? Your reference to "rapid evolution" highlights this difficulty - there is no such thing. That is, unless we define "rapid" in terms of, say, hundreds of years insted of hundreds of thousands. We are used to applying the term "rapid" to microwave ovens.

To me this separates evolutionary biology from the rest of Science, like chemistry, which builds evidence on evidence.

But this is, in fact, how evolutionary theory has been developed - by building evidence upon evidence.

[Daystar]

Ah, Day...you keep using the same, basic logic. As near as I can tell, you're basically saying that the Bible is right, regardless of the features of the world itself. Of course, you are entitled to that opinion, but it's not scientific. (And, of course, if the world were all science geeks like me, we'd be in sad shape.)

In the absence of any proof, is it not possible that a Creator made everything?

it is possible that the Creator made everything exactly to look like it is old, and that evolution happened exactly as science concludes that it did. It is also possible, as Lu Tze says, that the Creator re-creates the world every moment. These are things we can never prove nor disprove, but they are possible. We'll never know. In the absence of any possible test, I'll put my money on science: look at the evidence that is in the world that exists, and use our logical powers to figure out how the natural processes that now exist could have given rise to the natural features that we see.

Do you believe that you have taken a scientific approach by assuming the book, which you haven't read, doesn't have evidence for a global flood? Perhaps the scientific community has overlooked some of the points made by ICR's book. Is that possible? After all, it was the creationists who showed the world that Darwinian evolution (gradualism) was wrong (Even Darwin had doubts before he died). Why shouldn't they at least be heard about the Grand Canyon? BTW, did you know they are trying to censor a book from the book store at the Grand Canyon that presents the creationist perspective?

I apologize. I haven't read the specific book...but I've read enough of ICR's flood geology stuff to know whereof I speak. They omit data from other parts of the world, and they omit data from within the canyon itself.
As for the censorship idea, it's not strictly true. There is no interest in censoring the book--just not selling it in the section called Science. It's fine to sell it in the section called Religion.

You keep asking how I would support this or that teaching. What better "teaching" is there than to cite evolutionists who have seen the light about gradualism? I would then show students that what was once thought of as a transitional, was a variation within a specie, or similarities between species. But it is from evolutionists themselves who speak the loudest and most accurate about gradualism.

Herein lies the difference between science and religion. Evolutionists themselves are trying to advance our understanding of how evolution works. If Darwin's original version of gradualism is ruled out on the basis of new data, great. Throw out the old version, and replace it with a version that is more accurate. This is just what has been done. It is therefore a charade for creationists to say that evolution is wrong because gradualism is wrong, and therefore creationism is right. They should be saying that a very old model has been updated to be more accurate, and now the model explains even more data than it did before.

As for "transitional fossils" being merely variation within a species, and

: "And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds." (Gen. 1:24)

this is how evolution works. Everything has, and always will reproduce according to its kind. Similarly, DNA has, does, and must suffer mutations, because that's how DNA chemistry works. Therefore, every organism reproducing according to its kind will always produce kinds that are slightly different, due to the mutations. If environmental conditions kill off all of the original ones, leaving only the ones with the mutation, then we have a variation of the species. If this happens often, as it must over many generations, we have no choice but to end up with a species that doesn't quite look like it did before. Eventually, it may be different enough to be a new species...or a new genus...or a new family. And all of this even as the individual organisms reproduced according to their kind.

A transitional fossil, according to the evolutionarily and biologically correct definition, is a fossil that shows characteristics of both ancestor and descendent.

Dinosaur to bird, invertebrate to vertebrate, fish to reptile, monkey to man. These are major species and if evolution is true, there should untold billions of "in-between" (transitional) fossils.

There are probably fewer of dinosaur to bird, and fewer still of "monkey" to human--but there are still those that exist.

[Day] What is just one intermeditate between monkey and man? And what other intermediate is there between dinosaur and bird, other than Archyopteryx.

Your "transitional fossil" argument has two problems. One, which is actually very clever on your side, is that for every transitional fossil that is produced, you can come back and say that there are two more that we don't have. That is, if we have fossil A and Z, you say "you have no transitioinal fossils between A and Z." So, we find fossil M, and you say, "you have no transitional fossils between A and M or between M and Z. You're worse off than you were before." So, we find fossils H and R, and you say "you have no transitional fossils between A and H, between H and M, between M and R, or between R and Z. You're even worse off." And so it goes. Your argument always wins, even if it's just by moving the goalposts at each step in the game.

[Day] Again, it's not my argument, but that of many evolutionists who acknowledge the poverty of intermediates in the fossil record.

Eventually, though, we come up against genetics. At each step, changes occurred by mutations in genes. Some mutations, affecting the regulation of important proteins that affect morphological development, cause changes that are easily visible.

[Day] Again, you will find resistance from Gould on this. Mutations are typically harmful and have never been known to change one specie into another. Are you familiar with what Gould has said?

Individuals without the mutation look one way, individuals with the mutation look a different way. There will never be a transitional form between them because the transition is the single mutation itself.

[Day] Again, Gould says that mutation is not the "cause of evolutionary change." I'm sure his friend and colleague Niles Eldredge would agree.

If you have both forms, you have the transition. Yet, you can still say "you have no transitional fossils." You would be correct in that we don't have such fossils, but incorrect in making any significance of it.

But, perhaps you mean something else by "transitional fossil." It is commonly presented by the creationists that a "transitional fossil" is an individual--let's say a fish--caught in the act of "mutating" to something else--let's say an amphibian. Such a fossil would be half fish, half amphibian. Certainly, such fossils do not exist. There is no reason that they should, because biology doesn't work that way.

[Day] If species change, then it is biological. What else could it be?

To tell people (as some creationists do...which I know from personal experience) that these are the transitional fossils that evolutionists cannot produce is misleading and, I would say, immoral. It is "bearing false witness" and pretending that something is true, when it is not.

This is why I've been asking for your definition of "transitional fossil." According to the real definition, many exist. According to the pretend definition, they don't exist...but they can't exist except by special creation, so it's a fake argument.

[Day] So you are saying that an intermedate life form between dinosaur and bird is not a "transitional" life form?

My error. That was not the righ thing to say. My basic point is that the creationists should be heard if their science has been good.

Thank you. Apology accepted. Your basic point is much more important than phrasing. I agree. They should be heard if their science has been good. Unfortunately, it has not. I've explained why before, but I'll summarize here so we don't have to go back through all the posts. They use a non-scientific method.

[Day] That simply is not true. You need to attend a creation science lecture and learn what it is they teach.

They start with their conclusion, then look for data that are consistent with it. They ignore data that are inconsistent. This is not science. They need to account for the data, not ignore it. Until they do, they have no place in science classes--even if they speak very loudly about "flaws" in the existing models. They must prove their model to be better.

[Day] They already have, but it's falling on deaf ears; ears that don't want the prospect of an intelligent Creator before whom they will one day stand. It's not so much the creation model they are rejecting, but the one who created everything. It is not so much scientology as it is ideology.

They must show that it explains more data than the prevaling model. All they have done so far is show that there are a few data they can fit to their model.

[Day] I will argue that ideology plays an equally important role in the evolution/creation debate. This was manifested some time ago when Aldous Huxley said, "we objected to special creation because it interferred with out sexual mores." IOW, if God created us and laid down absolutes concerning our behavior, then we are accountable to him for it. Evolution gives man the opportunity to deny his Creator and be his own "god." Man can live his life as he pleases with no consequences if he is not accountable to his Maker.

For creationists to say "it isn't possible" doesn't make it impossible. That's not science.

I know. It's faith

Exactly. It should be in religion class, not science class.

[Day] Right beside humanistic evolutionism which requires as much faith to believe as creation.

So, the point here is NOT whether creation, or the Flood, should be discusssed in school. The question is whether it can be presented scientifically, and earn a position in science classes. The creationists have a long way to go.

[Day] The framers of pubic education won't even let creationists present their case. I have a tape on the fossil record which absolutely destroys gradualism. The science departments know this and won't allow it. And you wonder why the creationist postition seems so weak?

...uhh...and listen to Otseng. Work on the quotes, so you can keep your posts in the format that everyone here is used to. It will make it easier to follow. I'm enjoying our exchanges, but as they get more complicated, correct quoting becomes more important.

[Day] I'm really sorry about this and do not understand the mechanics of how to do what is required. I need a "hands on" demonstration.

[perfessor]

Daystar - Thank you for your spirited responses. As far as the "mechanics" are concerned, try going to the "practice" forum, and play with the keystrokes at the top of the message creation screen. Before posting, hit the "preview" button instead of "submit". If the message doesn't look right, try some more editing. Good luck!

[Jose]

Are you saying that deductive reasoning isn't part of Science? That is silly.

Great response! It would, indeed, be silly.

If a scientist didn't have their conclusion in mind then why do all scientists choose their results. Where is the Journal of No Result? That would be more scientific because we would have the whole picture. We don't because any Scientist has a vision of what they are looking for.

This actually turns out not to be true, but as usual, it's complex. I agree with what perfessor says: there is no such thing as "no result." Even if I drop the test tube on the floor, I still get a result (a mess to clean up). So, there's no Journal of No Result. It is possible, though, to have the results be unable to answer the question you set out to address. That's not "no result" but a result that forces you to do another experiment.

Now, there are many flavors of scientists. Some are virtually required by the traditions of their fields to make no statement of how the experiment "should" come out, and they are virtually required to use the data (and nothing else) to build their explanatory model. There is no "what they are looking for." In other fields, however, it is quite different. These are the fields, like ecology, that use what is called The Scientific Method. Here, the issues are so complex, with so many interacting variables, that a controlled experiment is exceptionally difficult. (After all, it might rain--or it might not.) So, the tradition is test one's understanding by formally specifying the hypothesis, make predictions based on that hypothesis, and then gather the data to see if those predictions are met. If they are, then the hypothesis could be right (but you don't know for sure because some unknown factors may have influenced what happened). If the predictions are not met, then you know your understanding is incomplete. So: you do have a model that you articulate beforehand, but not as "what you are looking for." It's what you are "testing the validity of," usually by looking for things that prove it wrong.

The assumptions (for evolutionary biology) were twofold from it's inception. The assumptions were as I see it
1.That evolution with speciazation explains variation.
2.That the Earth is really old because we are not witnessing rapid evolution with speciazation.

For item 1, you may be close - I would say that variation with selection leads to speciation, which is evolution. Item 2 is way off base - I've never heard this from an evolutionary biologist before. We say that the earth is old because of a proponderance of evidence from geology, astronomy, paleontology, etc. - all of which yield results which are consistent with each other.

I second perfessor's comment on #2. The age of the earth comes from many fields, many of which provide independent measurements.
As for #1, variation within populations (this is how "variation" is usually used) is explained by mutation and meiotic reassortment of alleles. "Evolution" affects only the relative frequencies of different alleles. [If you mean "variation among species" (i.e. that species are different) then, well...it would seem that you're saying "speciation explains speciation"...so I must be misreading what you mean.]

Also, as perfessor says, evolutionary biology does build evidence upon evidence.

What is just one intermeditate between monkey and man? And what other intermediate is there between dinosaur and bird, other than Archyopteryx.

You don't care for H. heidelbergensis, H. ergaster, H. rudolfensis, A. africanus, A. afarensis, A. anamensis, A. ramidus, or for the dromaeosaurs, Sinosauropteryx,Caudipteryx, Sinornis, Confuciousornis, Hesperornis, or Ichthyornis? You'll undoubtedly say that we don't know exactly how each of these last is related to older dinosaurs or modern birds, so they don't count, right?

Again, it's not my argument, but that of many evolutionists who acknowledge the poverty of intermediates in the fossil record.

You're wiggling, I can see it! It's the argument you raised by stating that there is no such thing as a transitional fossil. You're also choosing your words very carefully...the "poverty" of intermediates simply says that we don't have as many as of non-intermediates. Everyone agrees there.

Again, you will find resistance from Gould on this. Mutations are typically harmful and have never been known to change one specie into another. Are you familiar with what Gould has said?

Of course one is familiar with what he said. But, you know, saying that mutations are typically harmful is far, far different from saying that they are always harmful. Can you, for example, drink milk? Or, do you get a stomach-ache? Lots of us can drink milk with no ill effects. But most humans on earth (70% or so) cannot. We few who are lactose-tolerant have a mutation that results in expression of lactase into adulthood. This looks like a well-known mutation that is not only non-harmful, but actually helpful in cultures that rely on cow milk as a source of protein.

You are also mining your quotes again, to find just the right phrasing. Given the way biology works, with most traits dependent on multiple genes, it is unlikely that a single mutation would cause speciation. Multiple mutations, however...now that's a different story. Now, would you say that species-level differences are encoded in the DNA, or not? Is human DNA different from chimp DNA? Does it matter?

Again, Gould says that mutation is not the "cause of evolutionary change." I'm sure his friend and colleague Niles Eldredge would agree.

True again. Mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change. It is merely the cause of changes in DNA sequence (that, after all, being the definition of mutation, "a change in DNA sequence"). For evolutionary change to occur, additional things must happen, such as individuals having offspring. Again, mining the quotes for things that sound like contradictions is not a very elegant approach.

But, perhaps you mean something else by "transitional fossil." It is commonly presented by the creationists that a "transitional fossil" is an individual--let's say a fish--caught in the act of "mutating" to something else--let's say an amphibian. Such a fossil would be half fish, half amphibian. Certainly, such fossils do not exist. There is no reason that they should, because biology doesn't work that way.

If species change, then it is biological. What else could it be?

No fair changing the subject. Species can change by perfectly normal biological means. But individuals can't. Again, you can't fossilize a species. You can fossilize individuals from a species.

So you are saying that an intermedate life form between dinosaur and bird is not a "transitional" life form?

You're really good at this. Have you taken lessons from Clinton? I've been talking about "transitional fossils" or fossils that are intermediate between ancestor and descendent. You've changed words here to refer, instead, to "life forms." Sure, an intermediate "life form" is a "transitional" life form...but "a life form" is not "a fossil."

So, then, you're saying that a fossil that has characteristics intermediate between a dinosaur and a bird is not transitional between dinosaurs and birds? You'd better define what you mean by "transitional fossil."

They already have [proven their model], but it's falling on deaf ears; ears that don't want the prospect of an intelligent Creator before whom they will one day stand. It's not so much the creation model they are rejecting, but the one who created everything. It is not so much scientology [science, I hope? (J.)] as it is ideology.

Aha! Here's the crux of the matter: the idea that evolution itself "rejects the creator," and all of the implications attendant thereto. For the Creationist, this is a terrible prospect. For the Evolutionary Scientist it's not even part of the picture. Evolution doesn't reject the creator because the creator is outside of science and cannot be measured. Science tries to put the data from God's Creation together, and work out what the data tell us. It has no interest in, and no reason to address the prospect of a Creator as described in one of the world's many holy books.

I will argue that ideology plays an equally important role in the evolution/creation debate. This was manifested some time ago when Aldous Huxley said, "we objected to special creation because it interferred with out sexual mores." IOW, if God created us and laid down absolutes concerning our behavior, then we are accountable to him for it. Evolution gives man the opportunity to deny his Creator and be his own "god." Man can live his life as he pleases with no consequences if he is not accountable to his Maker.

You are right: ideology plays a significant role in the debate. It is the ideology of the Creationist that spurs the debate onward because the debate always moves away from the science--the actual evidence to be found in the world itself.

Now, whether Huxley actually said that, and in what context he did, is ancient history. We should be over it by now because no one thinks that way (at least no one I've ever heard of). BUT, you've hit another of those important points that should be in the "What if Evolution is Actually True?" thread. You imply that man can live his life as he pleases, from which you probably mean that chaos will ensue. I argue that this doesn't make sense, that there is no evidence for such a result, and considerable evidence against it.

The framers of pubic education won't even let creationists present their case. I have a tape on the fossil record which absolutely destroys gradualism. The science departments know this and won't allow it. And you wonder why the creationist postition seems so weak?

If the science departments really knew it, and the science were actually sound, they would be using it. It would be Big News. This is the "conspiracy to suppress the evidence" argument, which many Creationists put forth as if it were real. How about, instead of resorting to this kind of argument, you bring forth some of the data? We can start up a thread for it if you'll provide the data.

[Daystar]

Daystar - Thank you for your spirited responses. As far as the "mechanics" are concerned, try going to the "practice" forum, and play with the keystrokes at the top of the message creation screen. Before posting, hit the "preview" button instead of "submit". If the message doesn't look right, try some more editing. Good luck!

[Day] Thanks so much, but where is the "practice" forum? I couldn't find it above the creation message screen. What I don't understand is how do you retain the quotes and put them in the reply screen? Do you cut and paste from the first display screen? Hate to be a "numb-skull" about this, but but what can you expect from us creationists?