Evolution vs. Creation Debate in Tucson, Arizona May 10

Calvery Chapel Tucson and Fellowship of Christian Athletes ^ | May 10, 2003 | Fellowship of Christian Athletes

[\/\/ayne]

Click on the image below for a PDF flyer



click here to get Adobe Acrobat Reader which reads PDF files

Saturday May 10, 2003

All Saturday meetings except the debate will be held at Calvary Tucson’s East Campus 8725 E. Speedway Blvd.

9:00 AM “Origins of Life and the Universe” . . . . .Hank Giesecke

10:00 AM “Fifty Facts Why Evolution Doesn’t Work” . . . .Russell Miller

11:00 AM Lunch

1:00 PM “Age of the Earth, and Intelligent Design” . . . .Hank Hiesecke

2:00 PM “Data from Mt. Saint Helens” . . . . .Russell Miller

3:00 PM Break

4:30 PM Dinner available at U of A’s McKale Center

6:00 PM Debate at University of Arizona McKale Center “Alternative World Views: Evolution and Creation”
Dr. Duane Gish and Professor Peter Sherman

Sunday May 11, 2003
Calvary Tucson East Campus
8:00 and 10:20 AM “Take Creation Captive”.......Hank Giesecke

Calvary Tucson West Campus
9:10 and 11:30 AM “Creation or Chaos”......Dr. John Meyer

Calvary Tucson East Campus
6:00 PM “Why 600 Scientists Reject Evolution” ......Dr. John Meyer

[Dimensio]

But the beauty of a rose is no cultural construct; it's objectively true in all times, places, and cultures. And any "culture" that claims otherwise is barbaric.

Interesting claim. It's unsupported, but assuming that it is true, then why isn't it possible that the disposition for finding a rose "beautiful" came about in humans long before recorded history?

Of course, this is still based upon your false dichotomy that either Biblical Creationism is true or that there are no gods and that purely naturalistic evolution is responsible for all life on earth. As an atheist, I have no 'alternative' explanation that I believe, but you've been told before that not everyone who accepts evolution as a viable theory is an atheist, so why do you stick to this false dilemma?

[js1138]

These ideas aren't simple at all. They're profound. They certainly don't occur to animals.

Never had dogs, I take it. Dogs have an extensive moral code. They obviously can't verbalize it, but they live it.

Ever watch dogs play? They have an uncanny ability to bite at each other without closing their jaws. It's really amazing to watch.

Moral codes do not need to be written down or reduced to rational arguments. They can be embodied. And animals are not all self centered. There are many species where individuals restrain their self interest in favor of the group. In fact, this is a universal trait in mammals.

[atlaw]

In your post 108, you said "In college I was an officer of a student group that arranged campus debates to contribute to vigorous intellectual discussions on campus. All was well until we tried to arrange a debate on evolution. . . . We did eventually find someone willing to defend evolution in public. But he was slaughtered so thoroughly by the creationist from a Bible college that some students muttered the debate had been rigged."

And now you've posted that: "One of the young geology professors at the college I attended is a rising star nationally. He keeps coming up with new perspectives that better explain geologic phenomena than the standard model. When by a student asked the source of his inspiration he free acknowledged that it was often his creationist relative, who, although a non-scientist by profession, was so effective in exposing the holes in traditional evolutionary views of geology that the young professor had been compelled by some sense of academic integrity to go back to the drawing board. That has led to some (otherwise) surprisingly creationist theories."

Perhaps you can tell us all: (1) Who the creationist from the Bible college was; (2) what his arguments were that so effectively slaughtered his opponent; (3) who the rising star geologist is; (4) what the geologist's relative had to say that was "so effective in exposing the holes in traditional evolutionary views of geology;" and perhaps most enlightening, (5) what the geologist's suprising creationist theories are.

I await your answers with great anticipation.

[Dimensio]

At any rate, I'd still like to hear a thoughtful evolutionary explanation for beauty, love, morality, etc.

Love provides a reproductive advantage, as it lends to those experiencing it being more willing to defend their mates and their offspring. Further, love contributes to a social species (which humans are). Social species depend upon a thriving society to survive. Love is thus a survival advantage and those who do not love would be less likely to keep a mate and reproduce.

I don't see morality as a direct product of evolution. I see it as a result of humans being social creatures with individual desires. Generally, individual humans do not wish to be murdered. It provides an advantage if they can create a structure where everyone agrees not to murder everyone else with certain penalties (loss of life) imposed. It's a matter of mutual benefit for all to create a system where no one is allowed to steal or kill, as it puts your own property and life in a safer position.

You seem to want evolution to explain every aspect of human life, but while evolution may shape the human mind, it's not directly responsible for everything that humans do, think and feel. Humans form societies, create cultures. Much of this conecpt of 'beauty' comes from that.

[js1138]

Don't hold your breath.

[Dimensio]

How are moral laws "innate"?

[Dimensio]

It's fair to test evolution in the same way: what are its fruits when applied, however imperfectly or however impurely? One certain fruit is that the individual should be subordinate to the species. Millions may die if humanity progresses as a result.

What you are doing here is called appeal to the consequences. You are basically saying that what you perceive as the consequences of accepting evolution are undesirable, thus evolution should be considered false. Your first mistake is again assuming that applying a biological process to social structure is a good idea. It isn't. The validity of evolution has no bearing on the proper way to run a government. The second problem is that evolution is not falsified just because you don't like what happened in the Soviet Union. Millions have died, but this does not disprove evolution, it only proves that there have been meglomaniac leaders who were willing to use an out-of-context biological theory to a group of idiots who didn't understand the theory as an excuse for setting up a totalitarian regime.

Evolution is a theory of a biological process, period. It has no bearing on the 'proper' way to run a government. Anyone who tries to use it as the basis for social policy is an idiot, and anyone who thinks that the failure of a social policy is tied to the validity of evolution isn't terribly bright either.

[Right Wing Professor]

Many argue that evolution shouldn't be applied as it is, but that's inevitable for a system which claims to supply an alternative source of ethics.

Evolution does no such thing, and I would vehemently disagree with anyone, proponent or opponent, that says it does. All evolution purports to show is how species evolved from other species. It could, speculatively, accomodate the development of a moral or aesthetic sense in humans, but behavioral genetics is in such infancy as applied to humans I'd be doubtful about any such extension. We don't really know what aspects of behavior are innate in humans, so arguing how some human behvior evolved is premature.

If people choose to inappropriately deduce moral conclusions from evolution, which I would argue is just another example of the 'naturalistic fallacy', that's no more a valid criticism of evolution that analogous deductions that 'everything is relative' reflects on the truth of relativity, or that 'no matter what you do, it affects what you're looking at' reflects on the Heisenberg principle.

[whattajoke]

Please read and respond to #308. Many of us are waiting with baited breath.

[Dataman]

Ever watch dogs play? They have an uncanny ability to bite at each other without closing their jaws. It's really amazing to watch.

Dogs can play therefore they have a moral code? Classic non sequitur.

[stanz]

Figured what out?

[js1138]

They exhibit moral behavior. They have strict limits on agression within the species. Individuals do things that are more for the benefit of the group than the individual.

Would you care to suggest an alternate definition of morality?

[f.Christian]

Evolution is mental telepathy via helen kellers w/o the arms -- legs (( blobs )) !

[BibChr]

Are you dyslexic? Or just never thought these things through, or listen to a Christian in conversation? I don't want to be too hard on you if you have a reading problem.

Dam

[Dimensio]

Perhaps I've missed some context that would better clarify your statements, as I've a knack for overlooking such things. It seems that your comment is asserting that evolutionists are rejecting God, but perhaps I missed something that clarifies your statement.

[Stop Legal Plunder]

"Many argue that evolution shouldn't be applied as it is, but that's inevitable for a system which claims to supply an alternative source of ethics." Evolution does no such thing...

You may be correct in this. I haven't read Darwin for some 10 years and don't recall. I should have reviewed my draft once more before posting. At any rate, it doesn't matter if evolution was intended to provide a basis for a new ethics. What matters is that it has been and will be so applied and that such application is not inconsistent with evolution. Indeed, it's a natural outgrowth of the system.

Evolution excludes God in its account of the origins of life, so it also excludes ethics based on God. As ethical and legal systems in society have always been derived from religion, it's natural for people to look for ethical inspiration in that which replaced traditional religion in modern times, because ethics can't exist in a vacuum. So "survival of the fittest" is now the logical foundational ethical principle of post-religious darwinian society. And that's the case whether explicitly (e.g. in the former Soviet Union) or implicitly (e.g. in Separation of Church and State America).

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify and expand on my prior post.

[Stop Legal Plunder]

Many of us are waiting with baited breath.

You can exhale now. =).

[whattajoke]

thanks. but I made a mistake. I meant 303!

[Dimensio]

Evolution excludes God in its account of the origins of life,

Once AGAIN.

Evolution deals with the origin of species.

Evolution does not deal with the origin of LIFE

Further, as science cannot deal with the supernatural, there is nothing within evolutionary theory that would preclude a divine entity interfering in some means with the evolving life forms. You are confusing the naturalistic nature of science with a completely atheistic world view.

So "survival of the fittest" is now the logical foundational ethical principle of post-religious darwinian society.

Natural selection is basically an assertion (backed with empricial evidence) that those best adapted to their environment will reproduce and pass on their genetic information. It says nothing about how we "should" live our lives or structure our societies, it merely makes an assertion regarding to what does happen within biological systems. You seem to be arguing that the consequences of applying a biological theory to social systems should have some bearing on the validity of the biological theory. It does not work that way. Evolution is not falsified just because you don't like the Soviet Union.

[Right Wing Professor]

Damn, and I thought it was my post that created such excitement.