Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Academic freedom for creation explanation
The Pacer ^ | March 17,2009 | Reuben Kendall

Posted on 03/19/2009 10:26:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

As a freshman, I haven't been at UT-Martin for very long. But some problems are so obvious that they don't take very long to notice.

In my studies I quickly realized that when it comes to the theory of evolution, Darwin is the only one who gets to answer questions-or ask them.

I want to question this theory-to test it; check its credentials. And I want honest, thoughtful answers to my questions, not pre-formulated quips and deflections. But I have learned that if I'm not an evolutionist, my questions don't get credited, or even heard.

When I ask why theories such as intelligent design are discredited so off-handedly, I typically hear, "Because intelligent design involves metaphysics, but evolution is based only on facts." Well, I am not so sure.

Obviously, Darwin observed mutation and selection processes within the finch species of the Galapagos. But was he really seeing the extreme mutation and selection that would be required to make a bird out of a dinosaur?

It seems to me Darwin's idea of increasingly specialized life descending from simple, single-celled creatures, was entirely conjectural.

The theory might have had its roots in meticulous observation, but considering what we now know, the theory no longer seems to adequately explain such things as biodiversity and the origins of life. Never mind that paleontologists have yet to uncover the majority of "common ancestors."

Never mind that textbooks must be rewritten every time a greater understanding of genetics tells us that birds are actually reptilians; that humans are closer kin to sand dollars than ants or bees.

Never mind the leap of faith required to explain how incredibly complex single-celled life could have possibly developed from a floating mass of random proteins and minerals.

The scientific community assures me that evolution will undoubtedly produce answers to all these problems. But in the meantime, nobody else is allowed to say anything. If you ask me, this isn't academic freedom. True academic freedom would look like a variety of scientists, with differing opinions, having open and respectful debates about their ideas.

It would look like evolutionists actually being willing to learn what intelligent design advocates think, instead of dismissing them off-hand as religious fanatics or Creationists.

On April 6, a non-religious, non-political student organization will be hosting Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled" on campus.

If you are an evolutionist, I encourage you to come and see it and prove that reason, respect, and open minds still factor into today's science.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: academicfreedom; creation; evolution; intelligentdesign; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last

1 posted on 03/19/2009 10:26:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“...if I’m not an evolutionist, my questions don’t get credited, or even heard.”

I assume that you’re referring to a science class. If so, and if you are challenging evolution on the basis of faith, then you should not be surprised.


2 posted on 03/19/2009 10:31:16 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I would ask, no demand, evolution to answer the crucial questions to their argument: how microorganisms evolve into people, how lifeless matter became life and where that matter came from in the first place. Taking their argument at face value because they don’t want to deal in metaphysics is bogus. If they can’t prove intelligent design is false, then it remains a possibility, and, if intellugent design is true, then its basis is no longer in theology alone.


3 posted on 03/19/2009 10:48:50 AM PDT by cartervt2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.; SeekAndFind
"I assume that you’re referring to a science class. If so, and if you are challenging evolution on the basis of faith, then you should not be surprised."

Yes, SAF.

Only faith in philosphical naturalism is allowed in 'science' class. This faith is based on 2 fallacies.

First is the fallacy where P is assumed since P implies Q, Q implies P, and Q is observed. This is known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Second is the fallacy where philosophical naturalism is assumed because natural laws exist. This is the fallacy of false cause or non sequitur.

Those two fallacies are all that are needed to justify ignoring all potential causes that do not assume philosophical naturalism 'a priori'.

4 posted on 03/19/2009 10:51:12 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cartervt2k
I would ask, no demand, evolution to answer the crucial questions to their argument: how microorganisms evolve into people, how lifeless matter became life and where that matter came from in the first place.

Why just evolutionary biology? Why not demand that every discipline either explain where any matter or energy they deal with came from, or stop teaching?

5 posted on 03/19/2009 10:53:24 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cartervt2k

“If they can’t prove intelligent design is false, then it remains a possibility,...”

Evolution IS intelligent design!


6 posted on 03/19/2009 11:00:37 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

How weak your Christian faith must be to find solace in such logical fallacies. Such is the basis of all creation “science”, unfortunately. Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.


7 posted on 03/19/2009 11:05:08 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The one question Darwin couldn’t answer. What came first the chicken or the egg?


8 posted on 03/19/2009 11:09:49 AM PDT by lucky american (Glenn Beck Rocks!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

There war whole books written on how a single cell in our body works and all of them put together still can’t fully explain it and we are supposed to believe that we accidentally evolved from non-living bits of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen?


9 posted on 03/19/2009 11:10:50 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Socialism is the belief that most people are better off if everyone was equally poor and miserable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

What?
Why are you saying his faith is weak when he’s pointing out logical fallacies in the current mindset? He’s said nothing about his own faith, beliefs, or opinions.

In other words, what you’ve done is a cousin of the fallacy of saying “you’re wrong, so I must be right.”


10 posted on 03/19/2009 11:24:25 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Why just evolutionary biology? Why not demand that every discipline either explain where any matter or energy they deal with came from, or stop teaching?

You know, I can wrap my brain around the difficult concept that maybe matter always existed. But, how do lifeless solids and gasses spawn life? If they can explain that, I'll start to listen to their argument.

11 posted on 03/19/2009 11:24:59 AM PDT by cartervt2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Not at all.

As I read the post, the original poster claimed that science follows a certain “logical” process. He was wrong in his specifics.


12 posted on 03/19/2009 11:27:20 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cartervt2k
You know, I can wrap my brain around the difficult concept that maybe matter always existed. But, how do lifeless solids and gasses spawn life? If they can explain that, I'll start to listen to their argument.

Is it just lifeless solids and gasses spawing life, or the existence of life with the ability to evolve?

13 posted on 03/19/2009 11:27:58 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I am in full support of you. Hoping for an excellent turn out and open minds.

My son is doing an Origins course including works by Dembski and Behe and others supporting ID and, of course, Darwin and Dawkins supporting THE MONOLITHIC IMMOVABLE TRUTH. We are doing this at home since such open exploration of ALL possibilities is not welcome in the classroom. All perspectives on origins work with the same facts, but come at them from different presumptions and end up with vastly different conclusions. All sides require *faith* in the end imo. It is equally improbable to the human mind that all things came from nothing spontaneously w/o forethought(whence the elements?) or that all things came from an Intelligent Source. One side won’t admit this.

Historically, the scientific community always flips its whig at upstarts (and ends up wrong more often than not).


14 posted on 03/19/2009 11:31:00 AM PDT by RubberChickenGirl (RubberChickenGirl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
There is no base for "creationism science" or "intelligent design," so how can people teach it if they have no material or start? How can you even test children on ID?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have failed to find any theories, research papers, explanations, science publications, or even minute proof for the creationist/ID claims. Before this century, people have always seemed to be fine with teaching these types of things in a theology or social sciences class next to other religious myths. I find it troubling that people are so quick at painting on accusations of hidden agendas and motives like scientists have all banded together to fight religion and provide opposing views in the name of satan. This could not be further from the truth. If you feel that the science community is maliciously spreading lies and deceit, then stop trusting their medicines and technology. It is that simple!


Scientists love finding problems in their work.. Scientists of all religions, all over the world. Why would anyone sane love having to do tremendous amounts of work and experiments..? Well, if it is an important finding.. they often become famous and get grant money thrown at them. It gets on my nerves that people take a good majority of modern science with as much seriousness as they would any pseudo-science like homeopathy or the scientology crap. Theories of all kinds are published for the sole purposes of being scrutinized and teaching others.

And why can't evolution be a form of intelligent design, anyway? It sure looks like it to me. I don't know about your God, but my God is powerful and smart enough to make a beautiful process such as genetic evolution. A process so beautiful and amazing that I am surprised more and more Christians don't openly accept it with wide arms. It just shows that my God is an awesome God and can do anything, it strengthens my faith.

If evolution weren't at least partly true, we wouldn't have domesticated animals or new varieties of plants and fruits. There wouldn't be different variations of human physical features. We wouldn't have found all these fossils of creatures long gone. If evolution weren't somewhat true, man wouldn't have been able to genetically modify a potato to grow hair or rat neurons to turn bright fluorescent colors.

Many witness evolutionary changes very easily in simple organisms but fail to step back and take a look at the bigger picture. The flu virus mutates quite often. The main method of destruction for the AIDS virus is the fact that it can mutate very quickly to evade our defenses. Look at nearly any human genome and you might be surprised to see that our DNA has genes which aren't even important to us, but serve as vital proteins in other organisms. Genetic mutations that viruses have implanted or others that have passed with us from our ancestors fill a good majority of our inactive DNA.


When one sits down and looks at the evidence we have so far it is very hard to say evolution is not an ongoing process. When creationist advocates and scholars decide to sit down and compose texts describing the methods, proof, importance, origin, and general structure of intelligent design.. then and only then will it even start to be taken seriously in the academic field..
The only real "facts" about creationism now is.. what? The Bible's divinity itself and a scholarly monk who "calculated" the age of the Earth from it?


Could someone please try to explain to me, in a logical manner, of the proof we have so far of ID?

I don't care if I get criticized for my beliefs, they won't change. Those of you who do or even think about judging me should already know that prejudice is evil in origin and hate is equal to murder in the eyes of our Lord.
15 posted on 03/19/2009 11:32:49 AM PDT by leonid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RubberChickenGirl
Historically, the scientific community always flips its whig at upstarts (and ends up wrong more often than not).

This is the reason science has been successful for as long as we have been using it. It gives us room to make mistakes or overlook things and, then when they are observed/noticed, try to fit new findings in with the current theory/ies.

Creationism is nothing new, my friend. Many religious people have somehow branded certain areas of research as "evil" or "immoral" simply because it opposes what they believe in, which is kind-of hypocritical when you think about how Americans strongly dislike discrimination and general close-mindedness.

Obviously science has done plenty for us or we would not be paying so much for it. You need to take a second to count your blessings and stop acting like the scientific community is out to the hurt religion with a hidden agenda in their belt. We take so much science for granted and it really is a shame. Knowledge is power, a gift from God.. We would not have a brain had he not intended it for use. :)
16 posted on 03/19/2009 11:40:41 AM PDT by leonid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I usually avoid these threads, because they degenerate very quickly into chaos and absurdity, and endless demands for more and more detailed "proof" that simply doesn't exist yet.

You seem sincere, so I though I'd give it a try: This means that it must be possible to at least imagine some test or experiment that could produce a result that disproves some or all of the theory. It also means that theories cannot be proved. Theories can amass a large amount of supporting evidence, but they can never be proved beyond question.
So what does this mean to you? Two things:
  1. By scientific standards, evolution is a theory, and will always be "just" a theory.
  2. Creationism/Intelligent Design do not qualify as scientific theories, because they are not falsifiable. They make no predictions that can be tested. At least, not yet.
Evolutionary theory is incomplete. So are relavitiy, gravitation, quantum mechanisms, and a lot of other well-supported scientific theories.

Theology/dogma is man's interpretation of God's word. Men are flawed. So where theology/dogma conflict with observed scientific reality, perhaps the interpretation should be re-examined.

Good luck with your studies!
17 posted on 03/19/2009 11:43:01 AM PDT by CzarChasm (My opinion. No charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CzarChasm

Ping.

I’ve tried on many posts to explain why theology and science co-exist but do not trump each other. Science is about observations and experimentation. Theology is faith. Trust in both but don’t try to make one justify the other.


18 posted on 03/19/2009 11:52:50 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CzarChasm

I believe there are two subtle alternative definitions of the word, “Falsifiable,” and much of the debate between creationists and evolutionists revolves around these definitions.

* Ideas are falsifiable when there is some conceivable experiment to test them, but the test may or may not be possible today. This was the view of Karl Popper;

* Ideas are falsifiable when there is some experiment which can be conducted under present scientific knowledge to test them.

If we adopt the first definition, an idea is falsifiable if some conceivable experiment could test it, then we run into a major problem: Which experiments are conceivable?

First, if the history of science has shown anything, it’s that scientists are capable of devising new and ingenious experiments to test ideas. For thousands of years, the Greek and Pagan geocentric Ptolemaic system was adopted by the Church as truth, until Copernicus and Galileo found means to test it. An experiment may be inconceivable one day and conceivable the next. The only difference is the presence of a scientist to conceive of a new experiment to solve the problem.

Second, the ability to conceive is a very subjective and imaginative ability. One person may “conceive a possible experiment” while another may not. Thus our definition of which experiments are “conceivable” or not depends entirely on our imagination. It does not depend on objective facts at all. For example:

I can conceive of an experiment to test for creation vs. evolution. I can build a time machine, travel 6,000 years in the past, and see if there is a Garden east of Eden with two naked people in it (as predicted by creationism), or countless tribes of nomadic men and women settling into agriculture. This would certainly falsify creationism or evolutionism once and for all. But the experiment cannot be conducted, because I don’t have a time machine. Consequently, although this experiment is conceivable, the ideas are still not falsifiable, because the experiment cannot be conducted.

Clearly, defining ideas as falsifiable when they could “conceivably” be falsified is not a useful definition, for two reasons:

* First, scientists conceive of new experiments that were once inconceivable on a daily basis, thus making unfalsifiable ideas falsifiable. Unfalsifiable ideas are in fact the lifeblood of science, because they are the fuel that drives the experiments of tomorrow.

* Second, the definition is not useful because it leaves the criteria for “science vs. non-science” entirely in the imagination of the scientist. For while many experiments may be conceived, they are not useful unless they can be conducted.

This leaves us with the second definition: “Ideas are falsifiable when they are capable of being tested under today’s scientific knowledge.” This leaves us with a much better defined list of ideas which are falsifiable and those which are unfalsifiable. Falsifiable ideas can be tested today, and unfalsifiable ideas cannot be tested today. There is no ambiguity. Nothing is left to our imagination. The experiment either can be conducted or cannot be conducted.

This leads us to a second point: Unfalsifiable ideas are not necessarily false. We simply can’t test them. If we adopt the first definition of falsifiability, that we must be able to “conceive” of an experiment to test the idea, then unfalsifiable ideas are useless, because they can never be tested and thus never become science.

But if we adopt the second definition of falsifiability, that we must be able to perform the experiment to test the idea, then we acknowledge that things which are not testable today may become testable tomorrow, and the goal of science becomes to expand the range of human knowledge by finding ways to test what is not yet testable. Under this definition, unfalsifiable ideas become the lifeblood of science, because it is from them that new experiments are tested, new discoveries made, and new science developed.

So, when we define as falsifiable ideas which may “conceivably be tested,” we call things unfalsifiable and unscientific when we cannot “conceive” of an experiment to test them, and call things falsifiable and scientific when we can conceive of such an experiment. But no actual experiments need be conducted. Therefore there is no objective test to determine whether or not an idea is scientific. The whole process takes place in our imagination, and is subject to the scope of our imagination. And if a person is incapable of imagining a test for an idea, then that idea becomes eternally unfalsifiable and unscientific, never to be tested. Ideas which may be true are tagged as unscientific simply because scientists cannot yet test them.

In the end, a superficial definition of falsifiability is used to exclude those ideas which, although possibly true, do not fit into the scientist’s “paradigm.”

But when we define as falsifiable those ideas which may “be tested today,” we call things unfalsifiable when we cannot test them and falsifiable when we can test them. Consequently, there is an objective test to determine which are falsifiable and which are not; it does not depend on our imagination, it depends on objective science. Further, unfalsifiable ideas are not seen as a roadblock to science, but as the future of science, as scientists develop and improve their ability to experiment, and turn unfalsifiable ideas into falsifiable ones.


19 posted on 03/19/2009 11:59:53 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
"How weak your Christian faith must be to find solace in such logical fallacies."

How weak your critical-thinking skills must be to find solace in ignoring logical fallacies when they form the basis of a competing philosophy masquerading as empirically-based reason.

" Such is the basis of all creation “science”, unfortunately."

Failing to recognize that any 'theory' based on logical fallacies is actually based on faith ultimately leads to perfectly nonsensical statements offered in complete sincerity and utter stupidity. Such is the basis of 'science' based in philosophical naturalism, unfortunately.

"Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible."

To say the evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity is to say that faith in philosophical naturalism is perfectly compatible with faith in a supernatural creator. IOW, perfect nonsense.

20 posted on 03/19/2009 12:08:07 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson