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?

[svd4ever]

It is, indeed, a common misunderstanding. People are continuously saying that evolution is silly because it proposes that life arose out of nothing. But, the real issue is the last bit: that evolution is "just a theory." Remember what "theory" means in science: an explanation that has been tested, and never disproven, so many times that it is almost acceptable to call it "fact." You know--things like the cell theory of living things, or the theory of gravity, or the heliocentric theory, or the germ theory of disease. The difference is that evolution has more independent lines of evidence than any of these others.

Because something has not been disproven doesn't necessarily mean it is true. I'm sure you can agree with that. Since the existence of God cannot and has not been disproven, does that make it true? Also, I'm sure you are aware of disproven theories and ever changing theories.

Sure it has. There are numerous papers in the scientific journals, spanning several decades, that demonstrate evolution in a controlled environment. [Or do you mean the creation of life out of chemicals, rather than evolution itself?]

Evolution recreated? Unless you are talking about variations within a same species. I'm sure you are not talking about one species evolving into a different one. If so, I would be very interested in such article. As far as I know, evolution is speculative rather than empirical science. Speculative science deals with past singularities for which there are no recurring patterns of events by which they can be tested. Also, if you have a controlled environment then it is no longer "Natural Selection" (meaning there was intelligent interference in this).

In respect to creation of life out of chemicals, well we are talking about non-life into life. I'm not a scientist but you may be familiar with the concept of "irreducible complexity", which means that the simplest form of a living organism - a cell - cannot be reduced any further. As complicated you can make any amino-acid or any chemical, it will not suddenly appear into a form that has cell walls and DNA (fully formed). Also, the effect cannot be greater than the cause...I'm trying to use science here.

Jose, it appears to me that you do believe in some divine intervention since you mentioned that "God created eyeballs". You also mentioned that chance only pertains to DNA - well DNA is everything!!! Saying that evolution is a non-random directed process is an oxymoron. If it is directed in any way shape or form, then there is an intelligent intervention.

I guess we are talking about 4 different topics: Creation taught in school, origin of universe, origin of first life, and origin of new life forms, which can have their own thread elsewhere.

If evolution is to be taught as fact because it's "the best answer we have", even with it's inherent flaws, then I think we are teaching our children to be close minded and not give them the opportunity to choose. Otherwise, you would indirectly be teaching that God does not exist - atheism.

Always be searching for the truth and do not stop at evolution because it's the best we have. Yes, that means look for flaws in this theory, deal with them, as well as looking for flaws with Creation, if there were to be any, until you find the Truth....the Word of God - the Bible.

[An Observer]

......
Aside from the notion that something out of nothing isn't evolution (but certainly is part of life's origin, and should be covered in science classes), it is definitely not "chance" that we're talking about here. "Chance" only pertains to which bases in the DNA are changed by gamma rays or whatever causes a particular mutation. Selection provides plenty of direction. See the thread, "evolution is a non-random directed process." Calling it "random" is a gross misrepresentation....

I read through most of this thread. I still hold the same opinions now as when I started. I have a problem with both the Theory of Evolution (or Darwinism) and Creationism.

Theory of Evolution is pushed in the schools as the only logical explanation for how things are! Yet the theory presupposes that a random event is an event that happens for no reason! It presupposes that a distribution of events (a random process) causes an event such as a gamma ray to effect a paticular DNA molecule. The presupposition is not logical.

Creationism asserts that the life was formed once, and that there have been no physical/genetic changes of life forms. Although I do not agree with Creationism, I must admit that it is more logical than Theory of Evolution (as it is currently taught). Yet, Creationism is not allowed to be taught in schools, even though it is more logical than Theory of Evolution .

The problem with the theory of Evolution is with the interpretation of random events. Evolutionary theory, as it is taught, suggests that the cause of a particular event at a particular time can be inferred from the known distribution of events. In the case of mutations, it presumes that the cause of a particular mutation at a particular time can be inferred from the "known" distribution of the mutations. In fact, most people (including teachers) go so far as to presume the most non-logical idea of all, that the distribution caused the event. This is the most common meaning of the words "random event." This is common way of saying that the event happened for no reason. And is what makes Evolution, as it is taught, non-logical.

As I see it, the current state of things in education:

Evolution is a faith based explanation that presupposes that an event can happen for no reason. And is, therefore, not logical. Yet it is taught in all the schools.

Creationism, is a faith based explanation that is overly simplistic (I think) and tends to ignore much evidence, but it is logical (it is not non-logical), therefore it is more accurate than Evolution. Yet it cannot be taught in the schools.

Since they are both faith based, I don’t think one should be omitted from the public schools, while the other is admitted.

[Jose]

Ah, svd4ever, interesting points!

Because something has not been disproven doesn't necessarily mean it is true.

Absolutely correct. There's a difference, though, between an untestable supposition and a scientific theory. A "theory" is an explanation that has been tested many times. How is it tested? We state the absolutely essential predictions that the explanation ("hypothesis") makes. Then, we do the experiments, or make the observations, to assess whether those predictions are met. If those predictions are not met, then we can discard the hypothesis. So far, the Theory of Evolution has survived all such tests, over the last 150 years. That's one heck of a lot of tests.

Note that the tests have to be feasible, and that "experimenter incompetence" is not an adequate reason to disprove an hypothesis. If I say "the prediction is that the sky should be blue" and then I look at a pile of dirt, and say "all I see is brown," then I have not disproven the hypothesis. I have merely shown my technical incompetence.

That is, if we say "the theory of evolution predicts that scientists should be able to create life out of random chemicals," and then we find that no one has ever even tried to do so, well…we can't say that the prediction is not met. All we can say is that no one has done it right. With current technology, it's an untestable prediction, and therefore scientifically irrelevant. It is just as irrelevant as the prediction, based on creation, that God should be able to create dinosaurs right now. Uhh…we don't know how to make God create things on demand, do we? So, we have to say that this is an untestable prediction, and therefore scientifically irrelevant.

It turns out that all of the predictions about God are untestable. So, they are all scientifically irrelevant (at least, all of the ones of which I have heard that have tried to prove that God does not exist--i.e. disprove the hypothesis that he does exist). Sure, maybe he exists. But there is no scientific test that has been done. Evolution, however, has had a vast number of testable predictions thrown at it, and danged if they haven't all been met. Therefore, it's a "theory" and not just a "hypothesis."

Evolution recreated? Unless you are talking about variations within a same species. I'm sure you are not talking about one species evolving into a different one. If so, I would be very interested in such article. As far as I know, evolution is speculative rather than empirical science. Speculative science deals with past singularities for which there are no recurring patterns of events by which they can be tested. Also, if you have a controlled environment then it is no longer "Natural Selection" (meaning there was intelligent interference in this).

There's always a hooker, isn't there? "Ah--you did it in a lab! That's cheating!" "Uhhh…that was just within a species, so it's not evolution." Well, you know, the genetic and molecular mechanisms are exactly the same inside the lab and outside the lab, within species or between species, and whether humans or Mother Nature controls the environment. If you are looking for something else to happen, then you won't find it. I suspect that your vision of evolution as a "speculative science" is rather different from the actual science of evolutionary biology, and includes several kinds of processes that are not part of the theory of evolution. As such, it isn't going to be very useful for us to banter back and forth about whether evolution happens or not, because we are talking about different things.

Just what do you expect to have happen when one species evolves into another? How long does it take? What does the transitional form look like?

Why isn't change within a species, which is what evolution is, a valid description of evolution? Why does it matter who controls the environment? As I see it, evolution is exactly "each species reproducing according to its kind" over the course of many generations. With the occasional mutations, characteristics change, so the species changes with time. When we look at it now, and a million years ago, we see differences and call them different species--but it is still the case that all change occurred within a species, which reproduced according to its kind.

In respect to creation of life out of chemicals, well we are talking about non-life into life. I'm not a scientist but you may be familiar with the concept of "irreducible complexity", which means that the simplest form of a living organism - a cell - cannot be reduced any further. As complicated you can make any amino-acid or any chemical, it will not suddenly appear into a form that has cell walls and DNA (fully formed).

We can also look at the development of life as a bunch of chemical reactions becoming a more complex bunch of chemical reactions, which become a more complex bunch of chemical reactions. There's no big deal here; it's all just a bunch of chemical reactions. What the ID folks don't understand (I'm being charitable here--I bet they do understand it, but purposely misrepresent it) is that "irreducible complexity" is wholly bogus. They are the ones who say that eyeballs were created by God (because half an eye doesn't work). ID should be anathema to true Creationists, because they also say that simple things may well be evolution (like the rest of the chimp/human similarities). Their logical conclusion is that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor, except for the eyeballs.

Why is irreducible complexity bogus? There are two reasons:

1. Irreducible complexity claims that if we don't have a perfect scientific description right now, today, then the only possible alternative is God did it. This is silly. What about the possibility that we might figure it out tomorrow, or next week, or in 2012? Sorry, that's not allowed. The only option is God did it. (You don't think it's God, and might be some other designer? Look at the Discovery Institute website for their guiding philosophy.)

2. Irreducible complexity pretends that complex things, like eyeballs, can evolve only by accumulation of exactly the parts that they now have, exactly as they are now. Since such evolution is patently absurd, evolution overall must be absurd. This is pretty goofy. The eyeball issue has been soundly refuted, as has the bacterial flagellum--because evolution doesn't work the way that the ID straw man pretends it does. Why would you expect a bunch of chemicals to whiz around, and suddenly arrange themselves in the form of a cell with a phospholipids bilayer for a membrane? You wouldn't. ID says "therefore life is impossible without a designer." Science says "there were millions of intermediate steps that happened over the course of a couple of billion years." Irreducible complexity pretends that intermediate steps are impossible, and that the intervening years did not exist. It would be hard to ask for a sillier idea.

"Irreducible complexity," and the entire intelligent design idea, are dedicated to shooting down something that doesn't exist in the first place. They describe evolution incorrectly, and then say it is incorrect. Duh. They never address the real theory of evolution.

You also mentioned that chance only pertains to DNA - well DNA is everything!!! Saying that evolution is a non-random directed process is an oxymoron. If it is directed in any way shape or form, then there is an intelligent intervention.

You misquote me. Chance doesn't pertain to DNA itself; it pertains to the mutations that occur in DNA. Perhaps this is picky terminology, but it actually matters. Is DNA everything? No. I'd bet that if we were debating a different subject, you'd say DNA is NOT everything (for instance, the genetic component to homosexuality--you'd say homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, and therefore a sin, rather than a biological fate that some people simply have to live with). It might help if you were to read the "evolution is a non-random directed process" thread to get some hints about what we're talking about here. Mutation is random. Selection is not. It's the non-random aspect of selection that gives direction to evolution. The simplest example is elephants (or elephant-like creatures). Take a population of elephants, split it in two, and send some to the north, and some to the south. How hairy are they? Well, there are random mutations affecting hairiness, so there is genetic diversity. Some are really hairy, some are not-so-hairy. Both populations are identical in diversity, but in the north, the environment is cold; hairy individuals do better, not-so-hairy individuals do less well. Over many generations, only hairy ones are left. In the south, it's warm. The hairy ones don't do so well. Over many generations, only non-hairy ones are left.

This is pretty straightforward. One initial population that splits into two populations, random mutation affecting some characteristic, but different environmental conditions. Result: the two populations come out different--as if someone were guiding their degree of hairiness. No one was. The environment did. Looks like design, doesn't it? It's not. It's evolution. You'd probably even call them different species--elephants and mastodons. Pretty simple.

If evolution is to be taught as fact because it's "the best answer we have", even with it's inherent flaws, then I think we are teaching our children to be close minded and not give them the opportunity to choose. Otherwise, you would indirectly be teaching that God does not exist - atheism.

Evolution is taught as the best answer we have because it is the best answer we have. There are many who don't understand science, and therefore think that it is taught as fact. This is not the same thing. We offer data, and interpretations of data. If you choose to consider those interpretations to be facts, that's up to you.

Is it closed-minded to present students only with the scientific understanding, and not with theology as well? I don't think so. Suppose we were to do as you suggest, and offer some theology as an alternative. Let's even call it "intelligent design." What would our students learn? They would learn, as they should now, that science offers testable explanations that are based on things we already know. But, they would also learn that the "alternative" is to pretend that we are incapable of learning anything new, and that God is relevant only for those things that we don't fully understand, which are diminishing in number every year. They would also learn that the way to make the scientific explanations seem inadequate is to ignore a certain fraction of the science--a fraction that is chosen because it conflicts with a pre-determined, non-scientific conclusion.

Does this approach teach that God exists, and that creation is an acceptable scientific alternative to evolution? Or does it teach that intelligent design "theory" is non-scientific, and intellectually weak? I think that teaching "the alternative" does worse than not teaching it, because it proves it wrong. We are far better off separating religion from science, because that way, science does not undermine religion.

[An Observer]

........ Chance doesn't pertain to DNA itself; it pertains to the mutations that occur in DNA. Perhaps this is picky terminology, but it actually matters. Is DNA everything? No. I'd bet that if we were debating a different subject, you'd say DNA is NOT everything (for instance, the genetic component to homosexuality--you'd say homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, and therefore a sin, rather than a biological fate that some people simply have to live with). It might help if you were to read the "evolution is a non-random directed process" thread to get some hints about what we're talking about here. Mutation is random. Selection is not. It's the non-random aspect of selection that gives direction to evolution. The simplest example is elephants (or elephant-like creatures). Take a population of elephants, split it in two, and send some to the north, and some to the south. How hairy are they? Well, there are random mutations affecting hairiness, so there is genetic diversity. Some are really hairy, some are not-so-hairy. Both populations are identical in diversity, but in the north, the environment is cold; hairy individuals do better, not-so-hairy individuals do less well. Over many generations, only hairy ones are left. In the south, it's warm. The hairy ones don't do so well. Over many generations, only non-hairy ones are left.

This is pretty straightforward. One initial population that splits into two populations, random mutation affecting some characteristic, but different environmental conditions. Result: the two populations come out different--as if someone were guiding their degree of hairiness. No one was. The environment did. Looks like design, doesn't it? It's not. It's evolution. You'd probably even call them different species--elephants and mastodons. Pretty simple.......

There is a presumption built into your argument that exposes your world view as being faith based, and non-logical. You presume that there is no act of “will” behind the event you call a “random mutation”. Further, you presume there was no act of “will” behind the event that led deterministically to the event, that led deterministically to the event, etc ... that led to the event you call a “random mutation”.

Then you presume at the only forces that effect the survival (of, for example, one group of elephants vs another group of elephants) are forces that apply after the so called “random mutation” occured.

There is no scientific evidence to justify your presumptions. Further logical reasoning contradicts your presumption.

Your presumption is not consistent with any consistent observations of the natural world.

Clear logical reasoning, when applied to observations of the natural world, recognizes two types of forces. 1) Forces that are directly induced by beings who can “will” to apply force. And 2) forces that follow deterministically (i.e. mechanically) from the forces applied by beings who can “will” to apply force. Note there no logical basis to presume that randomness is force. Randomness is a word used to describe the unknown distribution of the two forces noted above!

Intelligent design and creationism may also have faith based elements to their respective world views, however they are not non-logical. They do not presume that "randomness" is a force.

Your presumptions expose your world view as being both faith based and non-logical.

[Nyril]

You presume that there is no act of “will” behind the event you call a “random mutation”.

We also presume that magical space monkeys didn't have a hand in what we call "random mutation", we also presume that invisible fleas from Mars also had no act of "will" behind the event we call a "random mutation". Heck, If I sat down and did 5 minutes worth of coding, I could produce a list of 5000 things we presume had no act of "will" behind the event that we call a "random mutation".

Do you see why that specific objection is silly?

Then you presume at the only forces that effect the survival (of, for example, one group of elephants vs another group of elephants) are forces that apply after the so called “random mutation” occured.

Bingo. Well, close enough anyway. We see no reason to believe that green oranges from delaware was a force until we see some evidence of it, same way we see no reason to believe god was required unless there was evidence he was.

There is no scientific evidence to justify your presumptions. Further logical reasoning contradicts your presumption

Thus far, your entire post has been a strawman. I would heartily enjoy some logic that would devastate our position. Lets have it.

They do not presume that "randomness" is a force.

Neither does anyone else.

Your presumptions expose your world view as being both faith based and non-logical.

Nonsequitor, you need to show this.

[An Observer]

You presume that there is no act of “will” behind the event you call a “random mutation”.

We also presume that magical space monkeys didn't have a hand in what we call "random mutation", we also presume that invisible fleas from Mars also had no act of "will" behind the event we call a "random mutation". Heck, If I sat down and did 5 minutes worth of coding, I could produce a list of 5000 things we presume had no act of "will" behind the event that we call a "random mutation".

Do you see why that specific objection is silly?

no!!

I can also produce a list of thousands of things that had no effect on a particular so called “random mutation”. Just as I can sit here and list thousands of things that has no effect on my decision to scratch my ear a moment ago. Still, some combination of forces resulted in my decision to scratch my ear. Some of those forces were direct acts of will (the most obvious was my immediate decision to scratch my ear). Some of those forces were the deterministic result of previous forces of will (by my self and others) that resulted in an inanimate spec of dust to settle in a place that gave me an itch.

You are presuming that because you can list thousands or millions of things that had no effect on the particular mutation, that the mutation had no cause!!!

Then you presume at the only forces that effect the survival (of, for example, one group of elephants vs another group of elephants) are forces that apply after the so called “random mutation” occured.

Bingo. Well, close enough anyway. We see no reason to believe that green oranges from delaware was a force until we see some evidence of it, same way we see no reason to believe god was required unless there was evidence he was.

Something (a cause) was required. And, if you do not know the proximate cause(s), there is always the first cause on which all proximate causes are based. That first cause being the one you most want to deny.

There is no scientific evidence to justify your presumptions. Further logical reasoning contradicts your presumption

Thus far, your entire post has been a strawman. I would heartily enjoy some logic that would devastate our position. Lets have it.

They do not presume that "randomness" is a force.

Neither does anyone else.

Your presumptions expose your world view as being both faith based and non-logical.

Nonsequitor, you need to show this.

Every effect has a cause. I may not know what the cause of a particular effect is. But, that does not justify ignoring logic, as you do when you presume effects can have no cause.

Atheistic evolution is based on a presumption that distributions of events cause events. It is, therefore, logically flawed.

Any disinterested clear thinker will acknowledge that individual events give rise to distributions of events. But that the individual events each have their own individual causes, which all have there own proximate causes which trace back to a root in the first cause, the first to "will" events in time (use any name you want, the most common name used is God).

[Nyril]

I can also produce a list of thousands of things that had no effect on a particular so called “random mutation”.

That's not what you said, and that is not what I responded to. You said:

You presume that there is no act of “will” behind the event you call a “random mutation”.

This is not helpful. Unless you can give me some evidence for this will, the will could be anything. Possibly a god of some sort, but with the amount of evidence (none) it is equally as likely that magical garden gnomes of venus are responsible, or the invisible pink unicorn.

Still, some combination of forces resulted in my decision to scratch my ear.

Before we precede, I would very much like a definition of force. I just finished two weeks of studying for a physics exam (95% on the final, woot!), and presently any definition of it I can conjure presently is not relevant to this discussion. Unless you're talking about kinetic energy, rotational energy, gravitational energy, spring energy, electromagnetic energy, etc...I can't help you.

You are presuming that because you can list thousands or millions of things that had no effect on the particular mutation, that the mutation had no cause!!!

No. What I'm saying is, if I am incorrect to discount the possibility of god's intervention in this, why I am not also incorrect when I discount the possibility of the magical table lamp intervening as well? If you cannot show me evidence for your position, your statement applies equally well to whatever number of creatures I can cobble together with the words magical, invisible, and powerful.

What I want is proof of some effect.

I may not know what the cause of a particular effect is. But, that does not justify ignoring logic, as you do when you presume effects can have no cause.

I didn't say things could happen without a cause, I said they could happen without help. Mutations happen because atoms sleep around. Fluorine will strip electrons from most anything (even noble gases), the entire left column of the periodic table is unsafe to store in nearly anything (keep away from water, air, etc...)

As DNA and these various chemicals of life are made from these atoms, it is entirely likely that during replication that a certain section finds more attractive things to bond with, or outside things and interfere as well (radiation). That is how mutations occur.

Now, I know I may be reading far to much into your words, but if you have meant that radiation or quantum mechanics is the outside force that brings about the changes, then I apologize, but what you are writing doesn't suggest this.

Atheistic evolution is based on a presumption that distributions of events cause events. It is, therefore, logically flawed.

How so? Doesn't an effect qualify as a cause? I fail to see the logical shortcoming.

But that the individual events each have their own individual causes, which all have there own proximate causes which trace back to a root in the first cause, the first to "will" events in time (use any name you want, the most common name used is God).

What caused god?

[perfessor]

The Theory of Evolution is pushed in the schools as the only logical explanation for how things are! Yet the theory presupposes that a random event is an event that happens for no reason! It presupposes that a distribution of events (a random process) causes an event such as a gamma ray to effect a paticular DNA molecule. The presupposition is not logical.

I've tried, but I can't make heads or tails of this sequence of statements. The TOE os not concerned (as I understand it) with what causes a particular mutation - only with what happens to the organisms that carry the altered gene(s).

Creationism asserts that the life was formed once, and that there have been no physical/genetic changes of life forms. Although I do not agree with Creationism, I must admit that it is more logical than Theory of Evolution (as it is currently taught). Yet, Creationism is not allowed to be taught in schools, even though it is more logical than Theory of Evolution .

Methinks you place too much importance on "logic". What seems "logical" is based on a point of view - ideas which validate your worldview will seem more logical than those that challenge it. In science, the question is not "what seems logical?" but "what does the evidence indicate?" Many illogical ideas have become accepted once the evidence was presented - for example, gravity bends light.

The problem with the theory of Evolution is with the interpretation of random events. Evolutionary theory, as it is taught, suggests that the cause of a particular event at a particular time can be inferred from the known distribution of events.

Can you be more specific? What "event" or "distribution of events"?

In the case of mutations, it presumes that the cause of a particular mutation at a particular time can be inferred from the "known" distribution of the mutations.

Again, the TOE is not concerned with the cause of a mutation. That is to say, we do not need to know what caused an error in gene copying. We can still examine its effects, at both the individual and population level.

In fact, most people (including teachers) go so far as to presume the most non-logical idea of all, that the distribution caused the event. This is the most common meaning of the words "random event." This is common way of saying that the event happened for no reason. And is what makes Evolution, as it is taught, non-logical.

Well, we've all had bad teachers from time to time. In 8th grade, my science teacher explained evolution by saying that giraffes evolved long necks so that they could eat leaves from the tops of trees. Even at that age, I knew she was wrong - I also knew that her poor understanding of the process did not invalidate the theory.

Evolution is a faith based explanation that presupposes that an event can happen for no reason. And is, therefore, not logical. Yet it is taught in all the schools.

Evolution is a fact-based explanation that presupposes nothing about causes. Therefore, it is logical. Two can play this game!

Creationism, is a faith based explanation that is overly simplistic (I think) and tends to ignore much evidence, but it is logical (it is not non-logical), therefore it is more accurate than Evolution.

Why is it logical to ignore much of the evidence?

Yet it cannot be taught in the schools.

Not in the public ones, thankfully.

[An Observer]

...........

What caused god?

Ahhhhhh …. Although my physics education was several years in the past (I earned both BS and MS degrees in physics), I think we have common ground.

I think I see the root of the problem. Because you see no evidence of gnomes or little green men, you think it follows that there is no evidence of God.

Let me put it this way: something cannot be “logically necessary” but “not exist” without violating the law of non-contradiction. The resulting contradiction is not only evidence of existence of God. It is logical proof of the existance of God.

As a physics student, I think you will be able to follow what follows. And it forms the basis for my assertion that Creationism and/or Intelligent Design should be included in the schools.


Time had to begin. To say otherwise is to say that time had no beginning, and that is the same as saying that the "beginning" of time was infinitely far in the past! But that does not make sense. If the "beginning" of time was infinitely far in the past, then the time required to get from the "beginning" of time to this point in time would be infinite! And we could never have gotten to this point in time! But, we are here at this point in time! Therefore, time had to have a beginning, that was not infinitely far in the past.

Some have suggested that time does not have to have a beginning. Some have suggested that time is circular, that time had no beginning but we reach this point in time again and again. However that does not make sense. The concept of time is one and the same with the concept of change. If time were circular, we would be re-living the exact same patterns of change again and again, one cycle to the next. Such an idea of time has no room for the concept of free will; and has no room for the ability of persons to make decisions. Such an idea of time turns all humans into robots, were all choices are meaningless, because they were preordained with no input of will at this point in time.

For time to have a beginning, something must have caused it. That something must transcend time (exist out side of time), must have will (to cause the creation of time), and must therefore have, at a minimum, characteristics of personality ..... God.

[An Observer]

The Theory of Evolution is pushed in the schools as the only logical explanation for how things are! Yet the theory presupposes that a random event is an event that happens for no reason! It presupposes that a distribution of events (a random process) causes an event such as a gamma ray to effect a paticular DNA molecule. The presupposition is not logical.

I've tried, but I can't make heads or tails of this sequence of statements. The TOE os not concerned (as I understand it) with what causes a particular mutation - only with what happens to the organisms that carry the altered gene(s).

If this were true, I would have no problem with TOE (other than, I would think it was as overly simplistic as is Creationism), as it would not contradict Intelligent design. But, TOE as it was taught to me, and as I read about it today, does contradict the concept of Intelligent design. In my experience TOE makes extensive use of the words “chance” and “random”, while asserting that the words indicate an event occurred for no reason.

Creationism asserts that the life was formed once, and that there have been no physical/genetic changes of life forms. Although I do not agree with Creationism, I must admit that it is more logical than Theory of Evolution (as it is currently taught). Yet, Creationism is not allowed to be taught in schools, even though it is more logical than Theory of Evolution .

Methinks you place too much importance on "logic". What seems "logical" is based on a point of view - ideas which validate your worldview will seem more logical than those that challenge it. In science, the question is not "what seems logical?" but "what does the evidence indicate?" Many illogical ideas have become accepted once the evidence was presented - for example, gravity bends light.

There is a difference between a paradox and a contradiction. A paradox does not appear to make sense based on current limited evidence. A contradiction is a logical impossibility.

Methinks youthinks there are no absolute truths. If there are no absolute truths, all logical thought meaningless. The law of non-contradiction is necessary to all clear thought.

The problem with the theory of Evolution is with the interpretation of random events. Evolutionary theory, as it is taught, suggests that the cause of a particular event at a particular time can be inferred from the known distribution of events.

Can you be more specific? What "event" or "distribution of events"?

I am referring to use of the word “chance” or “random” as part of the language of statistics. Statistics can, for example, be a useful tool in helping to predict the likely number of DNA mutations that will occur due to gamma ray radiation. As taught, most American students tend to absorb the idea that the events are the result of the statistics. While the truth of the matter is that the statistics is a result of observation of previous individual events. Each individual event has its own individual cause. “Chance” does not cause anything.

In the case of mutations, it presumes that the cause of a particular mutation at a particular time can be inferred from the "known" distribution of the mutations.

Again, the TOE is not concerned with the cause of a mutation.

if this were the case, I would not have a problem with TOE (other than it being overly simplistic)

That is to say, we do not need to know what caused an error in gene copying. We can still examine its effects, at both the individual and population level.

agreed

In fact, most people (including teachers) go so far as to presume the most non-logical idea of all, that the distribution caused the event. This is the most common meaning of the words "random event." This is common way of saying that the event happened for no reason. And is what makes Evolution, as it is taught, non-logical.

Well, we've all had bad teachers from time to time. In 8th grade, my science teacher explained evolution by saying that giraffes evolved long necks so that they could eat leaves from the tops of trees. Even at that age, I knew she was wrong - I also knew that her poor understanding of the process did not invalidate the theory.

It is not just individual teachers. It is also text books that assert that mutations occur because of "chance".

Evolution is a faith based explanation that presupposes that an event can happen for no reason. And is, therefore, not logical. Yet it is taught in all the schools.

Evolution is a fact-based explanation that presupposes nothing about causes. Therefore, it is logical. Two can play this game!

it is only fact based if it is limited to examination of effects of mutations on populations in an invironment. If TOE were limited to this, I would have no problem with it. But, TOE, as I have seen it taught, goes much further in asserting that mutations occur because of "chance".

Creationism, is a faith based explanation that is overly simplistic (I think) and tends to ignore much evidence, but it is logical (it is not non-logical), therefore it is more accurate than Evolution.

Why is it logical to ignore much of the evidence?

To ignore evidence does not necessarily result in a contradiction, and is not necessarily non-logical. It simply results in overly simplistic and incomplete analysis.

In the same way, TOE, as you seem to think it is taught, ignores evidence. It ignores the causes of the individual mutations. But it is not non-logical. However ,TOE, as I have seen it taught, is non-logical, as it asserts that chance causes mutations.

Yet it cannot be taught in the schools.

Not in the public ones, thankfully.

A science class that will not discuss causes, or will discuss "chance" as if it were a cause, is promoting an ideology/worldview/religion that is contrary to mine.


Either allow for other options in the public schools, or set up a voucher system. To do neither violates the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the US Constitution.