A Test Of Science And Evolution Knowledge

In Mike's defence, those aren't lizards. Not every small scaly quadruped is a lizard. Although given that's he's been happy to assign fossils of other extinct groups to modern groups they superficially resemble maybe I shouldn't be defending on this.On the topic, it's not at all clear that understanding of evolution is correlated with acceptance of it. I am not denying that most creationists have little understanding of the topic; but rather noting that most evolutionists have little understanding either (with the clarification that 'evolutionist' means someone who would answer yes when you ask them if they think people evolved from earlier animals, rather than evolutionary biologists).In the US (I haven't seen similar studies elsewhere), religious belief and political affiliation correlate with belief in evolution much more strongly than education or knowledge.

That's true. In my opinion, you overthought this question. Some pretty prominent denominations take the position that if one word of the Bible is wrong, then Jesus did not exist and their religion would be a bunch of hooey.You, of course, take the position that those folks are simply mistaken and could change. But you did not write the test. No. It just means that he disagrees despite knowing what scientist think. There is no reason why a creationist could not get 100% on the test.

I see the quote and I see the paragraphs in the reference devoted to the Biblical considerations. What I don't come up with after that review is very many scriptural considerations other than the disqualification of humans as being grouped with any other animals. Admittedly that exception is a pretty strong condemnation given the evidence that we did evolve.From the article.

quote:

---

I found that the Bible refers to members of the grass family frequently. I will focus my discussion on two types of passages: the creation of grasses and early post-Flood references.

​

...

​

Because modern plant baramins contain both woody and herbaceous members (e.g. Flaveriinae14 ), it is best to refrain from asserting one interpretation over another. I conclude that the creation account gives very little information about the baraminic limits of the grasses with respect to other plants.

---

So yeah, the author does admonish us to consider the Bible as the priority. But the reality is that there just isn't a possibility to gain much insight from doing so. According to Creationists, humans were specially created, but there just isn't much Biblical guidance after that. Your note would appear to support my argument and not yours. I'll add that there is no reason creationist could not add something like "ability to produce viable offspring" to the criteria. In discussions, they generally do that. I agree that it is not the most important issue to be discussed, but I then I am not making an argument against evolution. Yes. That is true of course. But not relevant to my comment. I am not making an argument against evolution. I am instead pointing out what I think is a strained, yet often repeated argument in favor of evolution.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

In my defence, that which evolved into lizards is necessarily not a lizard Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Your note would appear to support my argument and not yours. I'll add that there is no reason creationist could not add something like "ability to produce viable offspring" to the criteria. In discussions, they generally do that

---

I am afraid that you are not paying attention. "Subtractive evidence" is - supposedly - evidence that the species are NOT in the same kind. The "ability to produce viable offspring" is NOT evidence of that - quite the reverse.

quote:

---

I agree that it is not the most important issue to be discussed, but I then I am not making an argument against evolution.

---

It is also not even related to the point I am making.

quote:

---

Yes. That is true of course. But not relevant to my comment.

---

The fact that you are drawing a false equivalence certainly seems to be relevant.

quote:

---

I am instead pointing out what I think is a strained, yet often repeated argument in favor of evolution.

---

Of course the fundamental point was "what evidence would we expect to see if 'kinds' were real". Since kinds are - by definition - separate creations with no evolutionary relationship clear boundaries are to be expected. Since even the creationists we are talking about agree that species are not separate creations but have evolutionary relationships to at least some other species it is not expected that we should be able to find clear boundaries.

CRR posted an image showing the creationist version of acceptable evolution, showing these boundaries very clearly. We can imagine that each trunk represents a 'kind' taken onto the ark and the branches show evolution after the flood. Or at least that's how I'm reading it. There then should be no links between birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, insects, etc etc. One clear distinction in kinds in the biblical account is between those approved for eating and scarifice and those not.So presumably there should be a clear boundary between a pig and a cow?

Not surprisingly I had a creationist telling me that pigs and cattle are from the same 'Baramin'. Figure that.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I did not say that they were the same thing. I said that there was nothing stopping a Creationist from offering "ability to produce viable offspring" as a rationale. In fact, Creationist posters here have used such reasoning. Perhaps it is you who are not paying attention.As far as the fundamental point is concerned, here again, is your statement that I took issue with. I don't believe that statement to be correct. With a few notable exceptions, Creationists do not rely on scripture rather than biology. The only boundary that is closely tied to scripture is humans being separated away from every other animal. While a Creationist might not accept all of the evidence in biology, for the most part, they don't substitute scripture for those lacks.[1] In fact at least some biologic evidence, and I've cited one example, is just as helpful to Creationists. Yes, it is true that scripture cannot be contradicted, but there really is not much scripture to rely on or to avoid trampling.[1] at least not for defining kinds.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If it wasn't for the biblical reference, I reckon that's what they'd have to say - they're both even-toed ungulates. Like they'd group tapirs with elephants I assume - but really who knows what these people think - they all think something different.

quote:

---

The Lord then said to Noah, Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

---

Genesis 7

quote:

---

Clean meat is defined as the meat of every animal that has the hoof cloven in two, and chews the cud. Some examples of clean meat are the ox (cattle), buffalo, sheep, goat, deer, gazelle, antelope and mountain sheep, just to name a few. Unclean meat examples are the pig, the camel, the hare and the rock badger.

---

Rock badger!

quote:

---

So presumably there should be a clear boundary between a pig and a cow?

---

If you assume that the Bible is talking about Creationist "kinds" that would seem reasonable. Creationists do tend to make that assumption, although there is no good basis for it.

quote:

---

I did not say that they were the same thing.

---

Since the point you were replying to was explicitly and exclusively dealing with "subtractive evidence" offering an additional criterion without explanation is naturally read as offering an additional example. And, of course, offering anything else would require an explanation of why it was relevant. Which was not provided.

quote:

---

I don't believe that statement to be correct. With a few notable exceptions, Creationists do not rely on scripture rather than biology

---

The point you are objecting to is that creationists do not find adequate evidence of kinds in biology and resort to scripture to make up the difference.So far your response has been to assert that species don't look like separate creations either and to say that creationists can use some biological evidence to identify species as belonging to the same kind.If you are going to object at least come up with objections that are relevant and and not obviously inadequate.

Anyone can learn the science and assess the theory itself. The problem is in finding creationists who are willing to learn the science.In the scientific arena, the voices that count are from those who publish primary research papers in peer reviewed journals. This is true of every single scientific field. It's not a matter of being an expert, but a matter of being a scientist to does the science and publishes that science. As I have stated before, science is an activity, not a title.In forums and debates like these, what matters is the ability to have a functional understanding the primary research papers. You don't have to understand every word, but you should be able to read a paper and get the general gist of it. You should also know the basic concepts of phylogenies, genetics, and anatomy. What we see over and over are creationists that can't read primary papers and get the basics of biology wrong. Because of this, we correctly point out that their opinions of evolution are based on ignorance. If someone said that modern car engines run on steam instead of gasoline, what would you think of their opinions on how race cars should be designed? That's kind of how we view creationists. When a creationist says that macroevolution is a cat evolving into a dog, that is the equivalent of saying that a 2017 Ford Mustang runs on steam.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Pigs must be "fallen" cows.

Probably why they taste so good.

No, they taste so good because pigs have "less genetic information" than cows.