Evolution: World science academies fight back against creationists

PhysOrg.com ^ | 21 June 2006 | Staff

[grey_whiskers]

There is vastly more evidence for evolution than say even gravity. I don't see many folks here refuting that existence of gravity even though it is a theory as well.

That is because gravity is trivially experienced by the layperson. But the evidence for evolution involves more specialized background knowledge in order to appreciate it.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Both.

Besides, I like the puns :-)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank y'all for your posts!

Indeed, it sounds like they now want to include abiogenesis in the "theory of evolution". If that is the case, then "Katy bar the door" - because we have a mountain of issues concerning that subject. LOL!

[TheBattman]

Well - one of us has a problem..... I just hope and pray that you find the solution before it's too late.....

[grey_whiskers]

Yah, you're right that it wasn't *technically* speciation--but it was irrefutably natural selection, reproducibly, under controlled conditions.

First baby steps, as one might say.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

People who teach their children silly creation myths in place of science should be charged with child abuse.

No they shouldn't.

[grey_whiskers]

You're talking about a mixed assortment of heavily plagiarized, mistranslated, later day reselected, heavily damaged and partially reassembled scrolls handed down from various tribes of middle-eastern sandal wearing bronze age goat herders. If you believe it's useful as a modern day science book, you've got a huge problem.

Alex, may I have, "Begging the question" for $200, please?

The questions may roughly be summarized in this order:

1) Is there a God?
2) Does God intervene in the affairs of people, or in the natural world?
3) Did God, as part of His intervention, revealed any truths (say) to the ancient Hebrews?
4) Did the Hebrews get it down correctly?
5) How badly did mistranscriptions, typos, and cultural influences distort any message?
6) If the message did make it through, was it intended to be taken literall in a formulaic, more or less rigorous, engineering sense? If not, is it still useful by analogy, or as a metaphysical guide, so to speak? E.g. even in University science classes, much of what is taught at the 101 classes is found to be BS or crude approximations by the time you reach graduate school...

You apparently skipped right to step 6.

Cheers!

[rwfromkansas]

"Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet."

Non-sequitor.

Evolution has nothing to do with protecting the environment.

I am pretty much on the middle on this issue, but this was pretty weak.

[Coyoteman]

Perhaps I should have said, creationist vs. evolutionist. That is the type of thread we are on. The contraction crevo is shorthand, has no negative implications. It is one of the least controversial things on these threads.

[Coyoteman]

I believe that the Bible that is available today contains zero errors of fact or content. Any possible errors are strictly related to printing/typographical errors.

How do you support the global flood story? Do you rely strictly on belief, or do you try to find scientific confirmation?

[Torie]

So crevo = creationist. Whatever. Of course, what "creationist" means itself varies by poster. Mr. Walsh uses the term to mean the Big Bang, which really is a scientific "theory," and beyond speculation. So whatever. The use of the term in my opinion, even with your codicil, I think nevertheless still obfuscates more than elucidates, when it comes to clear communication. The use of the term is something less useful than creative destruction.

[Coyoteman]

So crevo = creationist.

No! For the third time I will try to explain this to you.

The term "crevo" is a contraction, a merging of two words. Those two words are creationist and evolutionist. You take the "cr" from creationist and the "evo" from evolutionist, and combine them. You get "crevo."

This is a term used to refer to threads where creationists and evolutionists contend issues and ideas. Nothing more.

It is one of the few terms you will find here that is purely descriptive, and not derogatory in any way.

[Torie]

Why don't you help this old man, who has senior moments, and type out the definition of "crevo" for me in your own words. What does it mean as to beliefs? The contraction comment leaves this poster with aging synapses confused. Thanks in advance. Cheers.

[Torie]

This is a term used to refer to threads where creationists and evolutionists contend issues and ideas.

Are you suggesting that anyone who posts on this topic is a "crevo?" I can understand the term "crevo threads" in that context, but not the term "crevo" as a dump on a specific poster, unless the dump is meant as to characterize one who bothers to post on the topic of origins, rather than spend their time on the really important threads, such as the merit or lack of merit, of Ann Coulter's rack.

[Coyoteman]

Why don't you help this old man, who has senior moments, and type out the definition of "crevo" for me in your own words. What does it mean as to beliefs?

It is an abbreviation, and it means nothing in terms of beliefs.

Here on FR, occasionally creationists and evolutionists will start debating on a thread.

This is happening with increasing frequency.

Many of the same posters are involved in what has become almost a day-to-day passtime.

Some of these folks are creationists (or IDers).

Others are evolutionists.

As a shorthand, to refer to these frequent threads, somebody combined the names into a single word. As I explained in a previous post, the initial letters of the words CReationist and EVOlutionist were combined into a new word, CREVO to refer to these threads.

The meaning is: a thread where creationists and evolutionists are exchanging posts (and usually disagreeing with one another). It has no connotations.

I don't understand why you are casting about for a deeper meaning for this. As far as I know, there is none.

[Torie]

OK, so in your view, when someone says to another poster that your are a "crevo," that merely means you participate in threads on the topic, and nothing more. I don't think that was what the poster meant, who posted to Mr. Walsh, and I think that definition is unique to you, but maybe that illustrates the problem with the use of the term, when using it to characterize a poster, as opposed to characterizing a thread.

At this point, I think we have beaten this drum until it has no sound, but I appreciate your participation in beating the heck out of the instrument, to a beaten and useless pulp. Hopefully, none in the future will refer to a poster as a "crevo" in derogatory terms, thanks to just the two of us. Ain't that grand?

[Coyoteman]

I can understand the term "crevo threads" in that context, but not the term "crevo" as a dump on a specific poster,

The term is not used for specific posters.

unless the dump is meant as to characterize one who bothers to post on the topic of origins

The topic of origins is different from the topic of evolution.

rather than spend their time on the really important threads, such as the merit or lack of merit, of Ann Coulter's rack.

Did you see the high school picture of Ann as a fencer?

(That is a least as good a non-sequitor as yours. And, as we old fencers used to say, "May your swash never buckle!")

[Torie]

Perhaps you could give a heads-up to saveus:

"Sorry. Won't work. Read a few science books if you want to know how it happened. But you aren't going to have the grey matter to understand it, so you will just end up back at Genesis, comfortable with the Jeanie story. This is the one thing I will never understand about you creo's [sic]. You laugh at physical evidence that dates back millions and millions of years. BUT, you have no problem saying that it just all POOFED into existence. What are you scared of?"

OK, maybe "creos" means creationist, as opposed to "crevos" which means a participatant on Crevo threads. LOL.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The bottom line is that every religion of Mankind has some sort of creation story. They're all pretty different, really, but all involve some kind of sudden, magical appearance of things.

In a way, so does the scientific explanation, given the Big Bang theory and the like.

The Big Bang theory is an admission the universe is an immaculate conception... not at all scientific...

Likewise in fallacy, evolutionary theory claims the earth is the center of the universe...

Illogical captain... If there was no universal dissatifaction for inevitable mortality and lack of a connection to something eternal, why does it matter to humans at all?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The article is full of fallacies in logic...

First...

"In various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied or confused with theories not testable by science," the declaration said.

The origin of life is from the earth is testable??? Life didn't come from somewhere else? How can you test this? You cannot...

There is no more evidence that Terran life began or evolved here than there is for it being brought or engineered here by extraterrestrials...

Equal in absurdity, there is just as much fallacy to say life came from a flying spaghetti monster or from a pot of boiling primordial spaghetti sauce...