Poll Needs FReeping! Evolution vs. creationism

Orange County Register ^ | 10/11/2010

[South40]

Should creationism, or "intelligent design," be taught alongside evolution in public schools?

* Yes, it's a valid scientific alternative
* No, it has no scientific validity
* Undecided

I know, it's a poorly worded poll. So save the critiques I didn't write it.

Poll is halfway down the page on right.

[truthfreedom]

Is there a “let the school board decide” option?

The Everson line of cases should be overturned.

[Behemothpanzer]

Also voted no, thanks for the heads-up on this one.

[camerakid400]

You are the 100000th person to make the mistake of calling evolution just a ‘theory.’

As a student of science, I study theories all day (and usually all night). Scientific theories are not guesses, hypotheses or speculations. The definition of theory in science is a group of ideas and priciples which explain a certain phenomenon.
I study quantum theory, the general theory of relativity, and electromagetic theory. These ideas are not lacking in evidence, rather, they are so precise that the modern world would not function without them.

[Agamemnon]

"Evolution" is a premise, from which springs a world view. It is not a theory in a scientific sense.

Nice to see you have chosen to study physical theories.

I'm a biochemist by academic accomplishment and by profession (28 years).

I study quantum theory, the general theory of relativity, and electromagetic theory. These ideas are not lacking in evidence, rather, they are so precise that the modern world would not function without them.

You missed the fact that in order for a premise to rise to the level of "theory," it must be testable. All the examples you listed above are testable.

The "Theory" of Evolution in the Darwinian sense is simply not testable.

FReegards!

[Lucas McCain]

I wasn’t insinuating anything by my question. I saw no reason why you should have been banned. But your response suggests that you have a chip on your shoulder.

BTW, why would you put such a stupid image on your page? And then wonder why someone my think it true?

[South40]

You may call it stupid but you're the only one who has ever has. Many have laughed as they have found it humorous.

As to wondering why anyone would think it true, how could it be? How could I be posting threads and responses in those threads if I have been banned or suspended? The short answer is, I couldn't. That's the result of being banned or suspended, you lose the ability to post. Get it yet, Luke?

And I have no chip on my shoulder, nothing even close. Those who know me would laugh at anyone who would accuse me of such a thing. But then, it's apparently not in you to find humor in things and to that I say, c'est la vie!

Adios, Luke.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I study quantum theory, the general theory of relativity, and electromagetic theory. These ideas are not lacking in evidence, rather, they are so precise that the modern world would not function without them.

That's the whole point - nobody disputes physics because physics is empirical, testable, falsifiable, etc.

The ToE is not. Evolution rests on a priori assumptions based on a particular worldview, which evidences are then made to fit. It is emphatically not empirical, and even the ability to investigate it forensically has shown that it does not have support from that direction.

Evolution is a spurious assumption.

[Fresh Wind]

God created evolution to give foolish humans something to argue about.

[camerakid400]

Sure its testable.

Take a group of organisms from one environment to another and see what happens to them over time.

Scientists have already done this. If I recall correctly, they moved a bunch of lizards from one island to another 40 years ago. After just a few decades, the same lizards had bigger heads and new intestinal structures.

[Tigercap]

Good point. Well said. Thank you.

[Agamemnon]

Sure its testable. Take a group of organisms from one environment to another and see what happens to them over time.

That is something that is done all the time. That is not a test whose outcome is dependent upon an evolutionary premise. In fact the test you have proposed doesn't even have an endpoint defined on the basis of evolutionary metrics. Where did you say you were going to school anyway?

Scientists have already done this.

I, as a scientist, have done so many times. Most biological scientists do. every microbiologist does at one time or another. In fact I can't think of one among my many colleagues in the biological sciences who hasn't. Not a one of them would say that evolutionary premise was at the pivotal core of what they were doing as they moved organisms from environment to environment.

If I recall correctly, they moved a bunch of lizards from one island to another 40 years ago. After just a few decades, the same lizards had bigger heads and new intestinal structures.

40 years will see dramatic changes in human beings as well, as you may find out some day when you reach a more mature age.

Did you know that some humans develop new intestinal structures particularly as a consequence of age and their genetics? What new genetic information are you aware of that "evolved" to bring about the larger headed lizard -- who as you say also happens to be the same animal? WHat does "evolution" have to do with such an observation at all?

Your hair tends to grow faster when it is warmer than when it is cold. Must one have to rely on an evolutionary premise to explain the phenomenon the way you must rely on say the theory of relativity to explain the influence of gravity upon light?

Your hair gets longer faster under certain conditions. The head of a lizard may also get bigger under certain conditions. Other appendages may have also. It may continue to increase in size by some factor over 40 years, since many lizards also continue to grow til the day they die. Why in your mind must the observation or a fact set such as this require an evolutionary explanation?

Your example sounds like it was drawn from a National Geographic show that likely dressed everything up in plenty of evolution speak and reams of unsupportable assuptions.

Evolution is merely the basis of a world view, not a scientific theory. I'm not sure, based upon the examples that you gave, that you understand what the Darwininan postulate for "evolution" is all about.

FReegards!

[camerakid400]

Evolution is not a ‘world view.’ I do not base any moral or ethical decision on evolution. I do not know any scientist who bases his or her world view on evolution.

I can’t speak further on the lizards because I do not have the data in front of me to analyze. I was trying to convey the point that evolution does not occur due to some mysterious force under equilibrium conditions. It is unsteady, and it occurs when an organism’s enviroment is changing.

The example is not even necessary, because there is more than enough evidence for evolution in other areas of biology. I am sure you are aware of this evidence and do not believe it is valid. I find it quite strange that a highly educated scientist such as yourself can dismiss an entire theory based on many principles as a ‘world view.’

[tacticalogic]

The "Theory" of Evolution in the Darwinian sense is simply not testable.

I don't see that the testability of it changes the question at hand. Creationism is certainly no more "testable" than evolution.

[Agamemnon]

I don't see that the testability of it changes the question at hand. Creationism is certainly no more "testable" than evolution.

You'll have to read more carefully. I didn't call "creationism" a theory either. Like "evolution" it too is a premise from which proceeds a world view.

FReegards!

[tacticalogic]

Which premise is most consistent with the known physical evidence?

[Agamemnon]

Evolution is not a ‘world view.’ I do not base any moral or ethical decision on evolution. I do not know any scientist who bases his or her world view on evolution.

I'll wager that you actually do so routinely and don't even realize it.

I can’t speak further on the lizards because I do not have the data in front of me to analyze.

Yes, but you still tried to didn't you? You relied on sketchy hearsay that you yourself had failed to critique as a true scientist would have done for its substance, and its veracity, before you chose to cite it as evidence for anything. That is a screaming example of how "evolution" has defined your world view.

You accepted everything in that narrative you related without any necessary scientific thought being put to it. You accepted it unquestioningly and you did it totally on faith.

Evolution is at the core of your world view. You just demonstrated it. I should wager more next time.

I was trying to convey the point that evolution does not occur due to some mysterious force under equilibrium conditions. It is unsteady, and it occurs when an organism’s enviroment is changing.

Using an assortment of measurements man has charted temperatures for millenia --- long global warming and long global cooling cycles. Clearly there is evidence of substantially changed environments. You gave me an example that one assumes you thought supported the evolutionary premise in the space of a mere 40 years. How did man evolve in direct response to this stimulus I just described? How would you measure it using the Darwinian evolutionary construct?

How do you know "evolution" does not occur in equilibrium? What is equilibrium anyway? How do you distinguish observed changes on the basis of causality? What kinds of changes happen which have been observed that one may concretely credit to an outworking of Darwinian evolution? What variables must an evolutionary model take into account?

The example is not even necessary, because there is more than enough evidence for evolution in other areas of biology.

You repeat platitudes without evidence -- characteristic of the individual who takes "evolution" on faith, and without question because it forms his world view. A productive study of Science requires far more.

I am sure you are aware of this evidence and do not believe it is valid.

Creationists and evolutionists both have the same set of facts. Evolutionists may have evidence of something, even as the Creationist does, but in the end no one has any evidence which credibly and scientifically supports the Darwinian evolutionary premise.

I find it quite strange that a highly educated scientist such as yourself can dismiss an entire theory based on many principles as a ‘world view.’

Name the "many principles" upon which you claim the "theory" is based. There is but one lone principle upon which the premise of Darwinian evolution is based and it is this: that man is his own creator.

That said, he has absolutely no idea how he did it, or why he did it, he can't recreate the formula, and he has no knowledge of the conditions under which it all supposedly happened in order to make it happen again. But yet by faith the evolutionist only sees himself as proof that it occurred.

The funny thing is in light of all that the evolutionist still thinks he knows so much. How perfectly self-delusional.

Evolutionism fails miserably in the face of what are obvious statistical impossibilites as viewed in the context of physical sciences; it is a decidely poor place to begin one's study of Science, or upon which to base one's world view.

Still there are those who choose to go through life and their careers with the blinders on. But they're just kidding themselves.

FReegards!

[Agamemnon]

Which premise is most consistent with the known physical evidence?

Physical evidence of what exactly?

FReegards!

[Theo]

The short: If you believe that “all this” came about because of evolution, then you belittle the sacrifice of the Second Adam, Jesus. If you’re a Christian, then evolution demeans your faith in Jesus, who provided a solution for the problem of the first man’s sin.

[tacticalogic]

Physical evidence of what exactly?

Physical evidence of increasing complexity of life over a period of billions of years.

Somehow I think you knew that already.

[camerakid400]

I never accept anything without evidence. The lizard example was studied in depth in an academic environment quite some time ago and was critiqued. It is not ‘heresay.’ If you believe the conclusion of the study to be invalid, that is your presumption based on faith, because I have not provided the primary source for you to analyze.

Since you do not know me personally, I find it unsettling that you can use a couple of blog posts to declare what my world view is. There is a logical fallacy in there somewhere.

Since you work in the field, I suppose you are aware of the scientific studies on the relationship between climate change and human evolution.

I do not take evolution on faith. You are again incorrectly assuming what my world view is. I stated that there is a great deal of evidence for evolution in other areas of biology because I have either studied the evidence or had discussions about the evidence with knowledgeable people.

You state that “no one has any evidence that which credibly and scientifically supports the Darwinian evolutionary premise.” Since you have worked in the field for many years, I find it surprising that you have not come across one piece of data, fossil, computational study, genetic analysis, etc, that you find at least somewhat valid. Also, to make such a blanket declaration of certainty, you would have to examine and reject every single relevant piece of research ever published on the subject. That is one giant leap of faith. My position in support for evolution can change at any time in the face of credible studies/evidence that cast doubt on the theory.

“That said, he has absolutely no idea how he did it, or why he did it, he can’t recreate the formula, and he has no knowledge of the conditions under which it all supposedly happened in order to make it happen again. But yet by faith the evolutionist only sees himself as proof that it occurred.”

That sounds like the same tired old creationist declaration rather than a reasonable argument from a scientist. There are plenty of ‘ideas’ on how evolution takes place, you just don’t like any of them.