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]

Day--

Check the button that says you have a message, and see if my suggestions help.

I've spent a lot of time testing things by clicking "preview" rather than by going to the "practice" forum. It works for me.

[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!

[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?

Don't worry - I had to practice before I got used to the system. In particular, getting "quotes inside of quotes" was tricky for me.

The "practice" forum, as I called it, is actually the "Test" forum in the "Miscellaneous" area. You'll have to scroll down past the other forums - it's all the way to the bottom of the list. Otseng in his wisdom has set it up as an area for practicing and testing the various options available.

In any event, it is the ideas in your posts that are important, so we are willing to forgive a lot of "mechanics" problems. But good mechanics will make it easier on all of us to understand your ideas!

[Daystar]

Jose wrote:
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.

[Daystar] Wouldn't a "non-intermediate be a "kind" (Gen. 1:24), or original specie? By poverty, I mean there are NO intermediates between major species, like nothing between dinosaur and bird. "Archy" is an extinct bird. Some birds have teeth and claws, but that doesn't make them an "in-between."

Daystar wrote:
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?

Jose wrote:
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.

[Day] Fair enough. What specie has been changed into another specie by mutation? The "it must have happened that way" response just doesn't cut the mustard.

Jose wrote:
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.

[Day] The last time I looked, those who can tolerate lactose, and those who can't, are human beings. What does latose have to do with species changing into different species? The Intelligent Creator designed birds with a vast gene pool that expresses itself through variation within kind.

Jose wrote:
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.

[Daystar] Convince me that Gould, Eldredge, et al are wrong. Nowhere did they say that accumulative mutations cause evolutionary changes. But I ask again, what particular creature can you cite as a new specie that was caused by accumulative mutations?

Jose wrote:
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?

[Daystar] Yes, I would say that it matters a whole lot. There are, of course, similarities between the DNA of the two. It was the Intelligent Creator's good pleasure to encode such similarities just to bait evolutionists (Just kidding:-) It was his good pleasure to design them in such a way that most of the DNA is similar. But it is the remaining strands that keep monkies in the jungle and us on Wall Street.

Daystar wrote:
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.

[Daystar] Ok, that's settled. Mutations don't cause evolution. Now, about change in DNA sequence. One of the marvels about DNA is that it can actually repair itself!!! Did you know that? (Is this Intelligent Creator awesome, or what?) So if a mutation steps in and tries to alter DNA, the system kicks in and repairs any damage. Anyway, I have read about this (and not in creationist literature.)

Jose wrote:
Again, mining the quotes for things that sound like contradictions is not a very elegant approach.

[Daystar] I have to ask what I'm "mining." I've tried very hard to be as specific and clear as I can. Do you still not understand what I mean by "transition?" Please share what it is you think I'm mining.


Jose wrote:
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.

Daystar wrote:
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.

[Day] Isn't the human being a specie? After all, didn't we evolve from an ape-like critter? Or did God create us and them?

Jose wrote:
Again, you can't fossilize a species. You can fossilize individuals from a species.

[Daystar] I don't think so. The fossil record shows fossilization of species. The creatures that were destroyed and interred in the rock layers died as they were created. This is why there are no intermediates.

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

Jose wrote:
You're really good at this. Have you taken lessons from Clinton?

[Day] Please........ Don't get me going on him. (Haven't heard how he's doing. Hope he's Ok and that he heard from God throughout his ordeal)

Jose wrote:
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."

[Day] Sorry for that confusion, but I defintitely mean that fossils represent the life forms they once were. I thought a sharp guy like you would have figured that out

Daystar wrote:
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?

[Daystar] Yes, of course, but I just wanted to rhyme.

(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.

[Daystar] Why?

For the Evolutionary Scientist it's not even part of the picture.

[Day] I understand that all too well having been a staunch evolutionist myself for many years.

Jose wrote:
Evolution doesn't reject the creator because the creator is outside of science and cannot be measured.

[Daystar] Is science ALWAYS the barometer for truth? What if it's really true that we are created beings, but that truth can't be taught in science because it isn't science? Would you object to this truth being taught in an "elective" class while the science classes continue to teach a fable? I guarantee you that if such an elective class existed, it would be one of the most attended classes. Kids want to know the truth, for the truth will set them free.

Jose wrote:
Science tries to put the data from God's Creation together,

[Daystar] You're saying that God is the Creator?

Jose wrote:
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.

[Day] What if students wanted any evidence supporting creation to be allowed in the science classes? Should their request be granted?

Daystar wrote:
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.

[Day] Did you know that men and women of the 17 and 18 hundreds were mostly creationists? The founders certainly were and so were many of the early contributors to science. It wasn't until Darwin came along and began to make some speculations. He couldn't have surmised that from a fossil record that hardly existed. Anyway, that's what he said before he died. It was his bulldog, Huxley, who ran with Darwin's ball. Then, Clarence Darrow opened the door for evolution to be taught in the schools by a trumped up charge agains scopes. Darrow's plan was to discredit creation, and he did a magnifiicent job. Bryant was poorly prepared and allowed Darrow to back him into a corner.

[Jose wrote:
Now, whether Huxley actually said that, and in what context he did, is ancient history.

[Day] This is the sum and substance of my argument, or at least part of it. The foundation of liberalism is "rejection, abandonment or change in absolutes, that which is set in concrete. The absolute is that God created everything. It's right there in verse 1 where all can see it. But liberalism comes along and says we can't hold to absolutes. We have to change with the times. Note this definition of liberal in Webster's Third New World Dictionary, p. 1303: "3a :Free from restraint or check: obs. lacking significant moral restraint, 4b :not confined to the exact or literal. 5b : NOT BOUND BY AUTHORITARIANISM, ORTHODOXY, OR TRADITIONAL OR ESTABLISHED FORMS IN ACTION, ATTITUDE, OR OPINION."

Evolution is an example of being unbound to the authority and orthodoxy of God's word, "For all scripture is inspired by God." (2 Tim. 3:16). I know that is a large pill for an evolutionist to swallow, but if I did it, then so can anyone. Another classic example of liberalism is this matter of sex. The word says that God ordained it for husband and wife, not unmarrieds, or homosexuals. The world says, "go for it and have it any way you like." This is taking "license" with established authority and orthodoxy.

Jose wrote:
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.

[Day] Look around. Does not the present condition of the world suggest chaos? Divorce, disease, destruction, violence, drugs, abortion, homosexuality, unsound economies, rebellion against parents, etc. represent the confused mind that rejects God's standards for behavior. The core of life without God is SELF FIRST, and that's not what God created us for.

I argue that this doesn't make sense, that there is no evidence for such a result, and considerable evidence against it.

[Day] I will just have to disagree.

Daystar wrote:
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.

[Daystar] It's big news all right, but the evolutinary paragdim has a very strong foothold in the schools. There will be no competition between the Creator God and the Evoluter god. What agreement is there between Caesar (the State) and the Savior (the Churchl)? What cause is there in common between Belial and Christ?

This is the "conspiracy to suppress the evidence" argument, which many Creationists put forth as if it were real.

[Day] A unique thing happened several years ago. There was a large science exhibit at a local Mall where students were encouraged to present whatever they wanted as long as it pertained to science. We asked the school board if we could present a study on "pleochroic haloes." I was manning our station and some students came by and observed the uniqueness of them. In one of our exhibits, a student noted there was no "daughter" in the decay chain of Polonium 218. His immediate comment was that this would mean this particular halo suggests that the foundational rocks of the earth (granites), from which these haloes were taken, were formed almost instantly. How could that be if these granites cooled over millions of years? Here is a great example of scientific evidence from the creationists. But do you think the pubic schools science curriculums want anything like that taught in the classroom? They very well understand the implications. Remember what I said about the Creator God and Evoluter god. BTW, this work on haloes has not been refuted by anyone in the scientific community. The challenge is still out there. If you want to know more about this, you can search "Robert Gentry polonium halos." This is pure science.

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] Great! Let's start with Gentry.

Peace,
Daystar

[Jose]

...the "poverty" of intermediates simply says that we don't have as many as of non-intermediates. Everyone agrees there.

Wouldn't a "non-intermediate be a "kind" (Gen. 1:24), or original specie? By poverty, I mean there are NO intermediates between major species, like nothing between dinosaur and bird. "Archy" is an extinct bird. Some birds have teeth and claws, but that doesn't make them an "in-between."

This is why the definition of "intermediate fossil" really matters. According to the definition used in evolutionary biology (which, I maintain, is the one that fits known biological mechanisms), many intermediate fossils exist--but far fewer than "non-intermediate" fossils for any particular lineage. Archy itself is intermediate. Your definition excludes all of these fossils. So, we need to know exactly what your definition is.

Archy counts as an intermediate exactly because it has features of both birds and dinosaurs: teeth and claws of dinos and feathers and wings of birds. It is probably not an ancestor of an extant bird, but from a different lineage, but it is certainly intermediate between dinos and birds.

What specie has been changed into another specie by mutation? The "it must have happened that way" response just doesn't cut the mustard.

There are several examples that are known. One of my favorites is the D. heteroneura / D. silvestris difference, which geneticists trace to only a handful of genes--and mutations therein. Another, of which you are probably aware, is the apple maggot fly. Here, it looks like there may be more genes involved. If the genes are slightly different, but the species have a common ancestor, then mutations happened.

The last time I looked, those who can tolerate lactose, and those who can't, are human beings. What does latose have to do with species changing into different species?

No relationship whatsoever. I was providing an example of a mutation that is not harmful.

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?

Yes, I would say that it matters a whole lot. There are, of course, similarities between the DNA of the two. It was the Intelligent Creator's good pleasure to encode such similarities just to bait evolutionists (Just kidding:-) It was his good pleasure to design them in such a way that most of the DNA is similar. But it is the remaining strands that keep monkies in the jungle and us on Wall Street.

The short answer, then, is that the mutations that make human DNA different from chimp DNA are responsible for the fact that we are different species. Whether the Creator set it up this way a-purpose, just to trick us, is certainly possible. The trouble is, he did a dang good job, so that we can't tell the difference between his Creation and a naturally-evolved world. Pretty sneaky.

Now, about change in DNA sequence. One of the marvels about DNA is that it can actually repair itself!!! Did you know that? (Is this Intelligent Creator awesome, or what?) So if a mutation steps in and tries to alter DNA, the system kicks in and repairs any damage. Anyway, I have read about this (and not in creationist literature.)

It turns out that the DNA repair enzymes (eg polI) aren't as accurate as the DNA replication enzymes (eg polIII). Damaged DNA that is repaired often acquires base changes due to the "error-prone" repair system. There are other ways of repairing DNA (yeast prefer to use recombination), but the bottom line is that mutations happen. DNA repair is essential, but it is unable to fix all of the damage that occurs.

I have to ask what I'm "mining." I've tried very hard to be as specific and clear as I can.

"Quote mining" is a term that has evolved to mean something like, "taking small quotes out of context so that they make it sound like the author of the quote meant something different from what they were actually saying." An example is the quoting of Gould's statement on the role of mutations in evolution. By omitting the context, it makes it sound as if Gould means that mutations don't have a role in evolution. Gould's entire statement on the issue is more like what I summarized: mutations are the source of variation, but it takes selection or drift to cause particular mutations to become common in the population (ie, to result in actual evolution). A similar kind of thing occurs when referring to evolutionists saying that gradualism isn't how evolution works, or in quoting a snippet from Huxley. This kind of selective quoting is popular among anti-evolutionists, since it makes it look like evolutionists are, to use a term that comes from exactly the same tactic, "flip-flopping."

Do you still not understand what I mean by "transition?"

Apparently not, as noted above. Jumping back and forth between "species" and "fossils," and stating unequivocally that transitional fossils have never been found, indicates 100% that you are using a different definition. I've offered two for you: (1) a fossil with characteristics of the ancestor and characteristics of the descendents, or (2) a fossil of an individual "caught in the act" of changing species. Is it one of these? If not, what is it?

Species can change by perfectly normal biological means. But individuals can't.

Isn't the human being a specie? After all, didn't we evolve from an ape-like critter? Or did God create us and them?

Again, you can't fossilize a species. You can fossilize individuals from a species.

I don't think so. The fossil record shows fossilization of species. The creatures that were destroyed and interred in the rock layers died as they were created. This is why there are no intermediates.

Humans are, indeed, a species. If we find skeletal remains of a human, we have morphological evidence of what the skeleton of that species is like--from one individual. We don't learn what the overall diversity of the species is, because we have only one example. Similarly, a fossil is the remains of an individual, from which we can get a sense of the characteristics of the species. Nonetheless, the fossil is one example, not the entire species (which would require all of the individuals of that species that ever lived).

Species change over time as individuals are born, have offspring, and die. I'll use a silly analogy: If green individuals have very few offspring, but blue individuals have many, then the population will gradually change, generation by generation, so that, eventually, most individuals are blue. If a yellow mutation occurs, and enables yellow individuals to have more offspring than do blue individuals, then over many generations, yellow individuals will become more common. They may even become the norm. In this way, the population overall--the species--can change from green to blue to yellow. But, no individual ever changed. You will find fossils of green, blue, and yellow individuals, but never of an individual that is part green, part blue, and part yellow.

Sorry for that confusion, but I defintitely mean that fossils represent the life forms they once were. I thought a sharp guy like you would have figured that out

Yes, the fossils do represent the life forms they once were. But to say that there are transitional life forms, but not transitional fossils, makes it really hard to tell what you mean. What does a transitional life form look like? What characteristics must a fossil have, or a life form have, to be defined as "transitional"? Must it have some characteristics of ancestors and some of descendents, or must it be half ancestor (say, the front half) and half descendent (say, the back half), or must it be something else? What are your criteria? You must have criteria, or you wouldn't be able to say that transitional forms don't exist.

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.

Why?

We've covered this before. It's the notion that if you take away the authority of the Bible, there's no moral code, there's no heaven, there's no eternal salvation. As I've said, I don't think the Bible is such a weak document that it can be undermined by a mere scientific finding (like evolution), but there appear to be others who believe otherwise.

Evolution doesn't reject the creator because the creator is outside of science and cannot be measured.

Is science ALWAYS the barometer for truth? What if it's really true that we are created beings, but that truth can't be taught in science because it isn't science?

This is one of the issues that always creates controversy. Science is not a barometer of "truth," even if there are those who say it is (primarily those who misunderstand it). Science is defined as "study of the natural world." The creator is beyond the natural world--the official term is "supernatural." By definition, this makes the Creator beyond the ability of science to address. Science classes can only work with things that are within the realm of science, not things that are within other realms (like, say, Italian literature, or in this case, theology).

Science tries to put the data from God's Creation together

You're saying that God is the Creator?

Maybe He is, provided that he set up everything so that it looks like the universe is old, and evolution is how life became as diverse as it is after the first life form developed. We can't ever test this idea, so we can't rule it out. On the other hand, it is very odd to accept the Creator, without also accepting his Creation and looking at it closely to see what it tells us.

Did you know that men and women of the 17 and 18 hundreds were mostly creationists? The founders certainly were and so were many of the early contributors to science. It wasn't until Darwin came along and began to make some speculations. He couldn't have surmised that from a fossil record that hardly existed.

Indeed they were. That was the age of "natural theology" in which scientists sought to glorify God by describing all of his Creation. That's what led to the cataloging of fossils, and the discovery of many rules of geology (read Lyell's Principles of Geology, for example). It's also what led to the Beagle having a naturalist on board. And remember, Darwin wasn't the inventor of the idea of evolution. It was already kicking around. He merely provided a sensible mechanism--which, after all, was based on a great deal of fossil evidence. Certainly, we have more fossils now, but there were enough at his time to develop the theory even though it made him sick to imagine a model that contradicted so much of what he had been taught.

Look around. Does not the present condition of the world suggest chaos? Divorce, disease, destruction, violence, drugs, abortion, homosexuality, unsound economies, rebellion against parents, etc. represent the confused mind that rejects God's standards for behavior. The core of life without God is SELF FIRST, and that's not what God created us for.

These things are certainly occurring. Many of them are occurring among Christians. Consider, after all, interesting facts like my son learning for the first time about sex and drugs when we moved him from public school to a Christian school, or people doing violence in the name of the Creator. Failure to believe in God doesn't cause these things, nor does accepting evolution as a reasonable explanation for life's history. None of these explain homosexuality, which is firmly based in biology. None of these explain unsound economies or unsound economic policy, which is evident from a quick examination of this administration's approaches to the US economy (give our taxes to the rich, then spend like mad to create a vast deficit that our children will have to repay with interest? that's nuts.) So, these are real problems--but we should address their actual causes, not blame the absence or presence of religious faith. Indeed, the problem is so big that we should be banding together to find real solutions.

You are right that Gentry is doing science. It might be interesting to explore his data and his model that he has built to explain his data. It might be interesting to explore the predictions that his model makes, and see if they are borne out. It might be interesting to explore alternative models that can explain his data, and see if they have more or less explanatory power. Maybe when I get a moment, I'll start up a thread.

[Daystar]

Hello Jose,

I can't believe what happened. I responded to your entire message and then lost it. I don't know what happened. I'm sure I did something stupid. But as you know I'm not all that familiar with the mechanics of these forums.

Rather than go back and do it all over again, let me just offer some comments about some of the things you touched on. On transitionals, I would say that macroevolution requires them as evidence that species changed into differerent species. And these transitionals would have characteristics of the old specie as they acquire the characteristics of the new specie into which they are evolving. Does this make sense? But what I'm saying is that there are no such fossils, rather those perceived as transitionals are really variations within the specie or fossils of other species that have similar characteristics.

On mutations, there is still no evidence of them causing new speciation, as noted by Gould. There are so many scientists who still believe in evolution but are on record as stating that the fossil record is no friend to it. If evolution is true, the fossil record should abound with transitionals in plant life, insects, along with all other species and kinds of life. They are not there.

On "chaos," you noted that homosexuality is a biological thing. Would you say the same about prostitution? Adultery? From the Biblical perspective, they are all immoral. If God intended for homosexuality to be a "biological" thing, then he would have to do the same for prostitution and adultery. IOW, he would have had to accomodate our genes with something that goes against his word.

From the Divine perspective, man is in a state of chaos because his mindset does not refect that which He intended. We were not created just to eat, drink, work, be merry and have sex with whomever we want.

The world is in a mess and it won't improve unless people realize the source of the problem. And that is man's basic nature to reject God's commandments, which form the foundation of ethics and morality. Imagine what it would be like if everyone loved God and obeyed his commandments. The blessings from above would flow so abundantly that we would be overwhelmed by them. But man wants to be his own god, do his own thing. The sinners theme song is the same as Frank Sinatra's theme song, "I did it my way......" My way is the wrong way and the condition of man's heart shows it.

Unless man comes to realize that he is a sinner and in need of a Savior, nothing will change and he will only grow colder to God and warmer to himself.

Well, this has gotten a bit off topic, but I think evolution is one of the things that have drawn people away from the truth of creation. And once you do that, it's hard to believe that you have been created by a loving and intelligent Creator who made us for a purpose in life and which we have perverted because of our sinful nature.

On Gentry, I would say go for it and let's see what happens. His research spells trouble for the uniformitarian theory.

Peace and God bless,
Day

[Jose]

I can't believe what happened. I responded to your entire message and then lost it. I don't know what happened. I'm sure I did something stupid. But as you know I'm not all that familiar with the mechanics of these forums.

If you did what I recommended in the "private message" I sent, and used "control Q" to set up quote tags, then there's a likelihood that you did what I have done, and hit "command Q" instead. That causes my browser to quit. It's very annoying.

Now: the transitionals. It is physically impossible for an individual organism to be anything but itself. It is constructed according to the DNA blueprints that it inherited from its parents. It has a set of characteristics, period. This is true regardless of what its ancestors were like, or what its descendents may be like in the future. Also, by definition, it is a transitional form between its ancestors and its descendents.

It is also an example of its particular species, and is also a representative of the genetic diversity within that species. These are the "criticisms" provided by creationists to say that transitional fossils cannot exist--that the fossils that do exist are species themselves, and simply show the diversity of that species. But, they are also transitional fossils.

To be strictly correct, every fossil is a transitional fossil, representing the transition between the ancestors of that species and the descendents of that species. Similarly, every living thing today is a transitional life form, representing the transition between its ancestors and its yet-to-be born descendents.

And these transitionals would have characteristics of the old specie as they acquire the characteristics of the new specie into which they are evolving.

Just as they do. Archy, for instance, has characteristics of the old species (teeth and claws) as well as characteristics of true birds (feathers, wings). It is also a species in its own right.

But you will never find an individual acquiring the characteristics of a new species into which it is evolving. It just doesn't work that way.

Individuals live, reproduce (or not), and die. They don't change. If their offspring inherit mutations, and if those mutations become common in later generations, then the later generations may display the effects of those mutations. The later generations may look different, and look like a different species. They could even be different enough from their ancestors of 100 generations ago that they would be unable to breed with them (if they could go back in time and try to do so), in which case they would be a "new" species. At the same time as they are a new species, they are also the true descendents of their ancestors.

You might find it interesting to look here.

On mutations, there is still no evidence of them causing new speciation, as noted by Gould. There are so many scientists who still believe in evolution but are on record as stating that the fossil record is no friend to it. If evolution is true, the fossil record should abound with transitionals in plant life, insects, along with all other species and kinds of life. They are not there.

That's right (and it's also quote mining). Mutations do not cause speciation. Mutations are simply the essential source of genetic variation. To achieve speciation, selection is required to "choose" some variations to out-compete the others. We can say the same thing about the Boston Marathon. Contestants at the starting line don't win the race. This is true. They have to run the race, and have the fastest runner out-compete the others to win. Of course, with no contestants, there's no one to compete, so contestants are absolutely required to have a winner. But still, it is true to say that contestants don't win the race.

Now, as you say, "if evolution is true, the fossil record should abound with transitionals..." It does. There are plenty of them. Only if you change the definition of "transitional" or imagine an incorrect mechanism of evolution, can you conclude that they do not exist. But in science classes, we aren't interested in alternate definitions or alternate mechanisms. We're talking about the specific mechanism that has been proposed by evolutionary scientists, that follows the known mechanisms of genetics. There's no point in inventing something else, just so we can knock it down.

On "chaos," you noted that homosexuality is a biological thing. Would you say the same about prostitution? Adultery? From the Biblical perspective, they are all immoral. If God intended for homosexuality to be a "biological" thing, then he would have to do the same for prostitution and adultery. IOW, he would have had to accomodate our genes with something that goes against his word.

This is off-topic, but...Prostitution and adultery? I can't say. There's adultery among some species of birds that set up "faithful" pair bondings (they're called "extra-pair matings"). They are often sought by the female. So, obviously, there are biological underpinnings. Prostitution? There are many instances of using sex to gain favors, so maybe there are biological underpinnings here, too. However, these are things that de-stabilize society, for which we can justify a moral stand against them (even without divine recommendation).

Homosexuality, on the other hand, isn't a choice. Enough is known about neurobiology, brain differences between males and females, and the embryonic wiring of the brain to know that there are many ways that brain wiring can get mixed up. There can certainly be genetic effects, but I think it 's more common (based on insufficient data to make this a scientific conclusion) that we're up against environmental pollutants that act as "endocrine disruptors."

We know of many chemicals that interact with the receptors for the sex hormones--including the plasticizer in fingernail polish. If a fetus is exposed to some of these chemicals at one stage in development, the anatomy of their genitalia is altered--giving masculinized girls and feminized boys. Usually, these anomalies are "adjusted" surgically (as they were for the children I know who were born with such anomalies). If a fetus is exposed to the same chemicals at a later stage, when the wiring of the brain is being established, the male-wiring pattern can be disrupted, giving rise to a female-like pattern. Or, the female-wiring pattern can be disrupted, giving rise to a male-like pattern. What's the result? People who are male in appearance, but with a female-like brain, or people who are female in appearance, but with a male-like brain. Their sexual preference is determined by their brain, not their external appearance.

As I see it, these aspects of embryonic development are largely beyond our control. We might even have to say (especially if we were Christians) that they are under the control of God. Why would God expose some embryos to endocrine disruptors, so that the people become homosexuals? It must be part of his plan that we cannot fathom. But, if this is the way God intends for certain people to be, why should we declare them to be sinners? Why not accept God's decision, and treat these people fairly?

.....Unless man comes to realize that he is a sinner and in need of a Savior, nothing will change and he will only grow colder to God and warmer to himself.

I'll turn this around, and present it as I see it. Unless man comes to realize that it is his own decisions that govern what happens in the world, and not some divine plan that is beyond his control, he will always be able to fall back on the excuse that "it's not my fault." "It's God's plan." "Satan made me do it." I say this is bunk. Each of us should take responsibility for our own actions. If we recognize that we are accountable to no one but ourselves, then the only way to explain the mess the world is in is to say that we did it to ourselves, and we have to clean it up. God's not going to step in and fix it. He's not going to spirit us away at the last minute to some paradise. This is our only chance.

[youngborean]

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

Agreed. But all of the building begins with the theory. It is deduced by faith that evolution is the correct theory and evidence is choosen. For instance, could you name me a Physical Scientist that would say that Carbon dating is accurate passed 70,000 years? None will. Becasue as a rule in statistics you can not accurately assess a sample after you have .1% of a sample size. This is why many dating techniques using half life rarely "prove" anything. Yet Evolutionary biologists will talk about half life data (even from carbon) to prove their theories. Why? Becasue they begin with assumptions and deduce thier projected results. Evolutionary Biology, in my opinion, is the worst discipline in Science for this. It is the only discipline that is really concerned with the date of the earth as "proof" for it's theories.

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.

This is from professor. My item two is an attempt at explaining the history of scientific progression in this field. In Science they build on assumptions that their predecessors were right. New data about the age of the earth didn't exist until after the theory had been established that the Earth must be old. Obviously we wouldn't now say "the Earth is old because it's the only thing that makes sense with the theory of Evolution." My only point is that assumptions in science preclude the way science is carried out typfied in deductive reasoning. This was brought up as a distinction between Scientists and Christians by Jose. He said Christians start with a conclusion. My point about the "journal of no result" is typfied in this response by professor.

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.

This statement clearly shows in saying that an experiment which yields "no result" is a failure. In science, scientists are constantly making assumptions based on what their expectations are. We look for an expected result and if we don't reach it is is a "failed experiment". I don't think that this belittles any evidence brought forth by any discipline in science. It only shows that Scientists have often started with a conclusion. In fact, I believe it is these conclusions that always drive "trends" in science. Look at "gene therapy" and "stem cell research". Research is heavily funded in this area on the assumption that these are the working treatments of the future. This trend is clearly based on assumptions, and will be the major contribution to what we consider science for the next while because it is new and exciting. Science is rarely carried out for the sole purpose of exploration into evidence anymore. It is instead driven by showing people exciting things to increase funding.

[ENIGMA]

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

Agreed. But all of the building begins with the theory. It is deduced by faith that evolution is the correct theory and evidence is choosen. For instance, could you name me a Physical Scientist that would say that Carbon dating is accurate passed 70,000 years? None will. Becasue as a rule in statistics you can not accurately assess a sample after you have .1% of a sample size. This is why many dating techniques using half life rarely "prove" anything. Yet Evolutionary biologists will talk about half life data (even from carbon) to prove their theories. Why? Becasue they begin with assumptions and deduce thier projected results. Evolutionary Biology, in my opinion, is the worst discipline in Science for this. It is the only discipline that is really concerned with the date of the earth as "proof" for it's theories.

Carbon Dating is not accurate beyond 70,000 years. Agreed, since the half-life of Carbon happens to be only 5730 years, and repeatedly halving the size of the sample get one to .1% in a relatively few muber of iterations (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, etc). This upper limit means that while it is rather useful to use for dating human-made objects, it is ineffective as a means to date things back further.

That's where the other radiometric dating mechanisms come in.

For example, Potassium-Argon dating is used since Argon, as a noble gas, does not react with other elements leaving it as an accurate measure for decay. It also has the slight bonus of having a halflife of roughly 1.25 Billion years. Also a plus...

This statement clearly shows in saying that an experiment which yields "no result" is a failure. In science, scientists are constantly making assumptions based on what their expectations are. We look for an expected result and if we don't reach it is is a "failed experiment".

No, it is an experiment that likely shows the hypothesis to be a failed one. Major distinction.

An experiment that yields no conclusive result whatsoever for or against the hypothesis is a failed experiment since there is no progress that has been made in determining the validity or invalidity of the hypothesis.

I don't think that this belittles any evidence brought forth by any discipline in science. It only shows that Scientists have often started with a conclusion.

Then, when a well designed experiment shows the conclusion to be incorrect, the conclusion is dropped. Can the same be said for most "creation science" organizations and "researchers" out there. I would bet not.

In fact, I believe it is these conclusions that always drive "trends" in science. Look at "gene therapy" and "stem cell research". Research is heavily funded in this area on the assumption that these are the working treatments of the future.

...Or that they could be. If someone found that the whole areas had the likely potential benefits of squat, then it would be dumped in favor of a new area of research.

[youngborean]

No, it is an experiment that likely shows the hypothesis to be a failed one. Major distinction.

Right. But not a major distinction in reality. In a lab, experiments are prioritized completely by their ability to show what the researcher wanted to find.

Then, when a well designed experiment shows the conclusion to be incorrect, the conclusion is dropped. Can the same be said for most "creation science" organizations and "researchers" out there. I would bet not.

I'm not trying to argue that creationists make the best scientific discoveries. I am only stating that beginning with a conlusion is not an intellectual exclusive to Christianity. The practice also exists at a high frequency in science. This is evident in your satement about a hypothesis, the classic model of Deductive Reasoning. Rarely does science prove anything, but it does provide evidence. You believe that potassium-argon dating is better evidence for dating the earth than Carbon dating. Is this based solely on evidence? It is a simple excercise. Prove to me that the half life of Argon that you presented is truly 1.5 billion years, without any assumptions (guessing constants). You can't. Rather you make assumptions that the mathematical extrapolation is accurate. I don't think that there is anything wrong with that process. It's a guess, and it is effective for explaining the unknown.

Many Scientific theories have had counter theories that other scientists believed. Scientists have made choices in their collective direction not by evidence alone. Instead science has moved for the most part where the money and excitment is, just like the rest of our society.

[Lotan]

youngborean wrote:

In a lab, experiments are prioritized completely by their ability to show what the researcher wanted to find.

Which lab, and which researcher are you referring to specifically?