Evolution of creationism: Pseudoscience doesn't stand up to natural selection

Daytona Beach News-Journal ^ | 29 November 2004 | Editorial (unsigned)

[orionblamblam]

> Which creation stories do you want left out? Odin?

You dare not leave out Odin from Creationism. How would you defend yourself when you stand before him in Valhalla?

[PatrickHenry]

Nice post. But like my links, I fear it may go un-read by those who could benefit the most. Whatcha gonna do?

[RadioAstronomer]

They're already teaching one such story as if it were fact (evolution). Might as well put the other theory on the table, too.

Nope. Evolution is a scientific theory, the other is not. Pretty simple really.

[Alkhin]

What irritates me about this issue is that both sides are acting as if science ONLY EVER discusses the origins of the earth. Why can the teachers simply not focus on teaching the scientific method? Is there truly an unwillingness amongst the creationists to accept the Linnean classification system? Is it really necessary for the advancement of technology to insist upon a secular view of the earth? Why is it that science itself has become a political game rather than a pure method of study? I think this is what has cause the most problems. Both sides are guilty of forgetting what science is in the first place. A pox on both your houses!

[RadioAstronomer]

Wrong. Science isn't a matter of votes -- or beliefs. It's a system of verifiable facts,

Not true. See my post #60

[UseYourHead]

And I suppose you know all there is to know in the entire universe and can there for empircally discount religion as silly?

I see your ignorance showing.

[RadioAstronomer]

Whatcha gonna do?

Keep trying to educate. :-)

[orionblamblam]

> They're already teaching one such story as if it were fact (evolution). Might as well put the other theory on the table, too.

Which "the other theory?"
1) The Raelians: Aliens put us here
2) Scientologists: Aliens put us here (sorta, I think...)
3) The Hindus: Ummmm....
4) The Nation of Islam: White People were Intelligently Designed by a mad scientist
5) The Great Green Arkleseizure: The universe was sneezed out his nose.
6) Communists: Lamarkian selection
7) Spiritualists: We're degraded forms from the Golden Age
8) Christians: Poofism


There seem to be a LOT of "theories" to rate alongside Creationism. Of course, only Natural Selection fits the standards of science, being verifiable, disprovable and observable, while all the rest are faith-based handwaving, but hey... so long as we're gonna teach one form of Creationism, why not teach them all?

What can you possibly be afraid of?

[GarySpFc]

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."

Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Physiologist, Atomic Energy Commission. As quoted in: Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, 3D Enterprises Limited, 1983, title page

[GarySpFc]

"After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."

Loren Eiseley, Ph.D. Anthropology, The Immense Journey, Random House, NY, 1957, p. 199

[imskylark]

Excuse me but many scientists question evolution. I wouldn't consider them ignorant. With as complicated and intricate life is and all that must sustain it, I find it much harder to believe it just happened on its own. Evolution requires more faith than I have.

[GarySpFc]

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups."

Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France, J. Rostand, "LaMonde et la Vie," October 1963, p. 31 from V. Long, "Evolution: A Fairy Tale for Adults," Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Vol 78 (1978), no. 7, pp. 27-32

[GarySpFc]

"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981

[r9etb]

Nor is the existence of God, and thus, neither is "Intelligent Design"

Although I can see how you might reason your way to such a statement, it is not logically supportable. The existence of God is not a logical prerequisite for theories stating that "Intelligent Design" is responsible for at least some of what we can observe of life on Earth.

If you're honest, you'll see that your statement relies on seceral Very Big Assumptions, including the following:

1. There is no life in the universe, except on Earth. (Otherwise, you'd admit the possibility that species from other planets could have played a role in creating life on Earth)

2. Intelligent Design and Evolution are mutually exclusive processes (this is a poor assumption -- a theory of "assisted evolution" easily combines the two, and helps to explain the fossil record)

3. God is the only possible intelligent designer (provably false: humans have demonstrated the ability to do it)

I think what you're really aiming at here is a global statement about the origin of life in the universe -- and you're claiming it sprang up randomly, and not through the actions of God. But you cannot apply such a theory to life on Earth.

[PatrickHenry]

Oooooh! The babbling of a psychologist. And from 1983. How very authoritative.

[HairOfTheDog]

The conversation in any classroom is worthless without full discussion of all these concepts and I hate to see either side trying to eliminate the other.

When I was in school, this was pretty easily handled by my teachers... that science can perhaps explain 'what happened' in the history of the world, but in no way can address who might have made it happen or why. Science and theology are not asking the same question, and the answers are understandably not interchangeable.

[Blzbba]

"And I suppose you know all there is to know in the entire universe"


That is correct.

[GarySpFc]

"I know that, at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of actual data."

Dr David Pilbeam (Physical Anthropologist, Yale University, USA), 'Rearranging our family tree'. Human Nature, June 1978, p. 45.

[Blzbba]

"Evolution requires more faith than I have."


I respect that. Creationism and ID require far more faith than I have!

[UseYourHead]

ALL written by subjective beings who are typically wrong more often than right and who use less than 10% of their brains to understand very nearly nothing about the universe. These articles prove nothing other than the fact that I can find plenty of things to prove my point. A house of cards may be intricate, beautiful and well desinged but it will still fall.