To the creationists - the tough question

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
I thought Creationists didn't have a problem with evolution per se, just with evolution between kinds. Within this group there may be two sub-categories, one holding that change within a kind draws only upon variation already present within the genome, the other accepting the additional possibility of mutation.
--Percy

---

Creationists have a problem with evolution. There is no real difference between so called 'micro' and 'macro' evolution - the terms were invented by creationists when the evolution for 'micro' evolution got so overwhelming that even they couldn't come at denying it any longer. But, lo and behold, by defining a difference that doesn't exist, they can still claim to not believe in evolution - meaning 'macro' evolution. This, of course, cannot be witnessed, unlike 'micro' evolution - the time scales involved are way beyond our ability to see. But make no mistake - 'macro' evolution is merely lots of bits of 'micro' evolution. There is no qualitative difference.Given that mutation is inevitable, evolution is statistically possible (easily demonstrable to anyone with a grasp of statistics). Once it is possible, it is also possible that it works across species, until and unless someone shows some 'inter-species' barrier that prevents it. Nobody has ever been able to do so. Yet creationists will deny its possibility.But don't forget, creationists represent very much a minority among the religious, even among christians. Creationism is virtually exclusively found among right-wing american christians. All around the world, the religious (including christians) believe in their god and evolution simultaneously. They realise that to refuse to believe in evolution would be like refusing to believe in gravity - "There's no such thing as gravity - it's just that God holds us all down to the earth!". We should consider ourselves lucky - lucky that the majority of christians do not follow creationism, and lucky that those who do follow it do not have sufficient power to repress scientific truth. Once upon a time, they did. Remember Galileo? If many creationists had their way, it'd happen all over again. It's the responsibility of rational people (christian, atheist, muslim or whatever) all over the world to ensure that people with religious beliefs and the desire to impose them upon others do NOT get the control they would like (like the creationists constantly chasing political office in the US). A vote against a creationist is a vote for truth, for science, for freedom.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Alright buddy, you fight the power! Stop those evil Creation scientists!

---

Don't worry, I, and millions like me, DO view people who would impose their beliefs upon others as evil, and do view those who would suppress knowledge because they don't like it as evil, and are doing our best to stop creationists (one group which contains such people) from gaining the power to do so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
So us Creationists are imposing our views on helpless young members of society? Well, first of all, I don't think many Creationists want a "Creation-only" textbook in the classroom. Last time I checked Creationists wanted a two-model textbook. Most evolutionists don't even seem to think that textbooks should contain problems with the evolutionary theory. Upon close examination, it would seem as though evolutionists are being the most oppresive of the two groups.

​

It also seems very morally incorrect for evolutionists to cite examples such as peppered moths or wingless beetles as "examples" of evolution in action. It is very unfair to tell students something true (variation within a kind) and then tell them it proves something else (information-gaining evolution).

​

Next, let's see exactly what Creationists are attempting to supposedly "force" upon the helpless minds of youth in our society. They are trying to teach children to live a good life and to think of others. They are basically wishing to teach them many of the basic principles of the bible. Sounds evil to me.

​

What are evolutionists teaching? That humans are a freak rearrangement of matter, and our most distant ancestor was a one-celled organism that arose from pond scum. Sounds like a nice story. Please give me one way in which evolutionary thought can be important for moral reasoning. After all, moral reasoning is perhaps the MOST important thing for a young individual.

---

Nice try, Cobra Snake. A number of straw men, and a few outright lies.Certainly, creationist leaders want a creation-only view taught in classrooms. They have repeatedly over the decades tried to achieve this. Settling for an 'equal time' arrangment is their current ploy. Better half the text than no mention in the text at all.I have never heard any evolutionist propose that texts on evolution should not contain details of problems with the theory, both ones which have been solved and ones which have not. Nor, I suspect, have you.Regarding peppered moths and so forth - sorry, they do prove it. Evolution is proven by any number of examples, of which those moths are merely one.Then you go for the straw man - moral teachings of christianity have nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion, and are completely irrelevant. Nor does evolution have any moral teachings. It is a scientific theory, not a moral belief.And what is evil is teaching children that religious beliefs - believed by a comparitively small percentage of the population - are fact, and that scientifically established data is not fact. Sorry if you don't like it - but I believe lying to children on matters like this is wrong.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b]"Certainly, creationist leaders want a creation-only view taught in classrooms. They have repeatedly over the decades tried to achieve this. Settling for an 'equal time' arrangment is their current ploy. Better half the text than no mention in the text at all."Sorry buddy, but you can't chant Conspiracy, Conspiracy! without backing up your claims. [/QUOTE][/b]
I'm not chanting anything. I'm stating simple fact, easily verifiable from the statements of any one of a number of creationist leaders. They have been trying, and will continue to try, to get evolutionary theory out of the schools and get creationism in.Oh - and I'm not your 'buddy'. [QUOTE][b]
"I have never heard any evolutionist propose that texts on evolution should not contain details of problems with the theory, both ones which have been solved and ones which have not. Nor, I suspect, have you."Well, I've mentioned the idea in another topic, to which no evolutionist (to my knowledge) has given me approval. Also check out this site: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0107ed_bill.aspIf you honestly read the whole link I think you will see that my statement is reasonable. In addition, I have read the evolution chapters in many biology textbooks (Suprise, written by evolutionists!) and find them completely lacking of any of the difficulties with the evolutionary theory. So yes, my position is backed by significant evidence on this matter. [/QUOTE][/b]
*sigh* Because there ARE no significant difficulties with evolutionary theory. The difficulties are so comparatively minor that you would have to look in something a little more thorough than a biology textbook to find them. [QUOTE][b]
"Regarding peppered moths and so forth - sorry, they do prove it. Evolution is proven by any number of examples, of which those moths are merely one."Well if peppered moths prove evolution, I might as well just give up. I wasn't aware that natural selection in action proved evolution and falsified Creation. [/QUOTE][/b]
Nobody is talking about falsifying creationism, and nobody is talking about falsifying creation at all. But yes, the peppered moths prove evolution, a part of which is natural selection. [QUOTE][b]
"Then you go for the straw man - moral teachings of christianity have nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion, and are completely irrelevant. Nor does evolution have any moral teachings. It is a scientific theory, not a moral belief."Well, I have read material with evolutionists preaching moral standards, and I agree that these discussions hold no merit scientifically. [/QUOTE][/b]
Then I give you full marks for TRYing to muddy the waters by bringing up an irrelevant point. Too bad it didn't work.And nobody preaching moral standards has any scientific merit. Morality is outside the realm of science. But, like I say, nice try.

quote:

---

"And what is evil is teaching children that religious beliefs - believed by a comparitively small percentage of the population - are fact, and that scientifically established data is not fact. Sorry if you don't like it - but I believe lying to children on matters like this is wrong."

​

Actually, Creation Scientists "evil" goal is to introduce to children the idea that there is more than one possible explanation for the history of Earth. Whereas evolutionists "valiant" goal is to exclude the discussion of difficulties with the evolutionary theory. See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0107ed_bill.asp

---

No, creationists (there are no 'creation scientists') goal is to remove evolution from the school curriculum, and replace it with creationism, teaching everyone as 'fact' their own religious belief.And thanks for that link - I needed a good laugh. Pleasing to see there are enough rational politicians left to stop such a stupid amendment. The theory of evolution isn't in the least controversial - except as far as a comparatively few religious fundamentalists are concerned, because it upsets their religious belief. That's the only 'controversy' about it.Every time I start to lose hope for the US, I recall how they have steadfastly refused to allow creationism into schools under the lie that it is science, or an alternative to evolution. Gives me hope for the US all over again.

​

[This message has been edited by toff, 02-18-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b]Toff, I'm sorry to say that your last post is so overflowing with bias, ignorance, and arrogance. [/QUOTE][/b]
*sigh* more accusations of bias - from such an 'unbiased' source. Try actually debating and discussing the issues, rather than resorting to ad hominem. [QUOTE] [b]
"I'm not chanting anything. I'm stating simple fact, easily verifiable from the statements of any one of a number of creationist leaders. They have been trying, and will continue to try, to get evolutionary theory out of the schools and get creationism in."Well, "buddy," if there ARE any intelligent Creation scientists who believe this, I doubt much of the Creation Science community would back that position. [/QUOTE][/b]
Based on the above sentence, I can state that you are either lying or extremely naive. [QUOTE] [b]
It's also interesting to note that you responded to my post (which inquired that your claim was basless) with yet another baseless claim. You can whine all day about this supposed Conspiracy, but it is complete hogwash unless you can identify ANY evidence AT ALL that it is even REMOTELY true. [/QUOTE][/b]
Sorry, it is true. As anyone who has followed the debate over the last twenty years or so knows. What do you want next, 'evidence' that the earth orbits the sun? [QUOTE] [b]
"*sigh* Because there ARE no significant difficulties with evolutionary theory. The difficulties are so comparatively minor that you would have to look in something a little more thorough than a biology textbook to find them."Well, in that case, mentioning the difficulties should be no problem! Actually, your claim is completely nonsensical. Ever read "Darwin's Black Box?" And again, it would be nice if you would stop with the baseless assertions that are a result of your intense bias towards the evolutionary theory. [/QUOTE][/b]
Yes, mentioning the difficulties would be a problem, because they require far more detailed knowledge of the subject than you find in a basic biology text. And yes, I've read Darwin's Black Box, and, like everyone else who knows anything about evolution, I laughed at it. Do a search on the web and you will find any number of detailed critiques of it, pointing out the many places it is in error. [QUOTE] [b]
"No, creationists (there are no 'creation scientists') goal is to remove evolution from the school curriculum, and replace it with creationism, teaching everyone as 'fact' their own religious belief."Hmmm. My claim (that evolutionists are unfair) had an included link. Your claim (That creationists wish to monopolize the education system) was backed with nothing. It doesn't take a really smart person to deduce which claim is more baseless. If your future responses continue in the same way, I see no reason for continuing to debate with you. [/QUOTE][/b]
More ad hominem. Yawn. [QUOTE] [b]
"And thanks for that link - I needed a good laugh. Pleasing to see there are enough rational politicians left to stop such a stupid amendment. The theory of evolution isn't in the least controversial - except as far as a comparatively few religious fundamentalists are concerned, because it upsets their religious belief. That's the only 'controversy' about it."I really don't see how I can respond to this nonsense. [/QUOTE][/b]
You can't, of course, because it's true.

quote:

---

Toff, I don't want to start a personal debate with you. I simply want to discuss in a kind manner what the evidence points to. Your baseless assertions and claims that evolution has no flaws are making it very difficult to carry out intelligent discussion. Please don't take this as an insult, but as a suggestion to open your mind a little farther than you have shown in recent posts.

---

What nonsense. If you didn't want to start a 'personal debate' you wouldn't have resorted to ad hominem and insult. And in this last post you have resorted to lying. How sad. I suggest you actually do some reading on the subject (and actually learn something about it) before you try to debate it - otherwise you will have nothing to say but ad hominem and insult, as is apparently the case.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
TOFF, lets get this straight. I do remember when evos thought that creationist were using the Macro thing as a strategy and that is how it was heard to me but largely because the channel of creationism was not as broad as it is today. But if this is taking sides then you should understand when I tried to make sense of Lerner's concept of genetic homeostatis applied in a book on chickens that seems to have some significance to understand a crossed valley of Mayr with dispute about an agreement between Wright and Fisher that surfaced later then sooner I notice not any of this history but that Lerner was citing Dobshanky about the term "MESO" evolution inbetween what is accused of creationists these days about the difference. I brought this out on Taxacom to no yearly ear so if then, the charge does go both ways. For if any creationism ground were gained in this "tactic" evolutionists would not retreat to Croizat's citing Darlinton of boas on Round Island but to so Dobshanksy that either was the risk Lewonitn knew or something Sturtevant told the DOb. We need to learn more about how to lessent the name calling on C/E disscusion boards and try harder to show where words end and numbers begin.

---

I'm sorry, but I don't begin to understand what you're trying to say here. Could you reformat your post, including some punctuation, and try to be a little clearer? I can't even tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing.Except that there's one bit of your post that I think I understand - so I'll comment on that. 'Macro' evolution exists only as an 'excuse' for creationists. It is a scientifically meaningless term, invented by creationists when even they could no longer ignore the evidence of what they termed 'micro' evolution. There is no qualitative difference between the two; even the names are red herrings invented by creationists. To a scientist (and evolution is a science, after all), they are meaningless terms.

​

[This message has been edited by toff, 02-20-2002]