[_ Old Earth _] Evolution taught in High School - Violation of Rights?

[disciple_of_truth]

Ignatz wrote:
The trial in Dover a few years back showed that it is unconstitutional to teach ID in public school classrooms in the United States because it was shown to be creationism in disguise. Not science. Simply because proponents of ID have tried and failed to use a carefully orchestrated political campaign, court orders and litigation to get their views taught in a public school classroom does not therefore mean ID is scientific. As a scientific theory, it is completely without content. It postulates nothing, it has no predictive value, and it isn’t falsifiable.

I hope that you took the view point of PBS with a grain of salt. I hope you aren't relying on what was documented in that one program to make your claims here. My atheist boss was the first to admit that PBS is extremely one-sided and biased towards evolution. Especially with the Dover case documented on PBS. He and I watched it together. You speak here as though no one else watched that program. You make it seem like none of us have ever heard these claims before. Your claims, of course, are debatable and even refutable. Just because a court of law rules the teaching of ID as unconstitutional does not mean that ID/creation is any less valid as a science.

What makes ID infinite and unfalsifiable is its refusal to explain intelligent design.

Ahh? Well, not sure what you mean here. Explain?

You send your kids to biology class to learn by what processes living things evolve. ID doesn't even try to answer that question.

No I don't. I send my children to Biology class to learn about life and the processes of life. Bio = life, ology = study of. It's not called the study of evolution. It's called the study of life. ID doesn't try to answer what question?

As an account of the origin and history of life, ID doesn’t have any meat to it. It doesn’t provide any details that scientists might confirm or refute through future experimentation. And most crucially of all, it doesn’t explain anything or predict anything, a key requirement for successful scientific theories.

Then why are more and more scientists each year turning to ID / Creation in seeking for the truth no matter where the truth leads. What about Irreducible Complexity? Or, the information contained in DNA? What about the Anthropic Principle? The appearance of design? ID doesn't have any meat to it?? It doesn't if you don't want it to.

Mutations are what makes any given population of species robust and able to withstand changes in their environment.

I thought the whole concept of evolution was that you wanted organisms to respond to changes in their environments, not to "withstand" these changes? If they "withstand" these changes, how do they evolve?

In order for any evolutionary process to change one species into a new species in the sense that Darwin's tree of life suggests, you need to add information to the species. In order for one species to evolve into a higher species information must be added. Mutations do not add information to the DNA molecule. Mutations are simply the scrambling of information that is already there. Most mutations are neither frequent nor beneficial.

Micro/Macro evolution are exactly the same thing, operating on the same principle over vastly different time scales.

No they're not. They're quit different. Micro-evolution is nothing more than adaptation within a species. There is no change into a new species. Macro-evolution is the supposed change from one species into a new species over time. In recent years, evolutionists have hijacked the word "adaptation" and renamed it "micro-evolution" because they saw an avenue to spin their evolutionary rhetoric through something that was widely accepted. Micro-evolution is a misleading term and one of many reasons why I am opposed to the forced learning of it in public classrooms.

Your continued explanation using a small bowl of black paint is even more rhetoric that proves nothing and even fails to make a meaningful point. As is true regarding the rest of your post.

That’s where the true threat emerges. ID theorists and other creationists don’t like what the overwhelming body of science has to tell us about where human beings come from.

Or, is it that evolutionists don't like the overwhelming evidence that points to a Creator God because if there is a chance that God is real then there is a pretty good chance that he (the evolutionist) is going to be held accountable for his actions and thoughts and teachings. This is why so many folks are opposed to the God of the Bible. Man, in his sinful, prideful, selfish state does not like the idea that one day he will have to give an account of himself to God. Evolution has long since run out of true scientific support. What little there may have been in the beginning was gone long ago. You, have a decision to make. Are you going to continue to ignore God, or turn to Him for His mercy. One way or another, you will bow down to Him someday.

 

[Ignatz]

Just because a court of law rules the teaching of ID as unconstitutional does not mean that ID/creation is any less valid as a science.

That's not why ID isn't science. For a theory to be deemed "scientific", it needs to follow the scientific method. Observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building define science. not scriptural authority. It also has to be falsifiable, meaning that the theory can be proven wrong by looking at the evidence. Advocates of ID must demonstrate how hypotheses based on it can be tested by experiment or observation. Otherwise, ID isn't science. The Dover trial was national news for months, on every network, in every major publication. I didn't see the pbs program you cite, but it sounds like it came to the same conclusion everybody else has come to regarding the unconstitutionality of ID.

What makes ID infinite and unfalsifiable is its refusal to explain intelligent design.

Ahh? Well, not sure what you mean here. Explain?

It means that ID consists solely of current gaps in evolutionary theory, it postulates nothing on it's own that could be refuted through experiment or observation. Again, what makes Darwinism finite and falsifiable is its commitment to explain processes of evolution. Debunk one process, and evolutionists are forced to propose and test another. Naturally, students should be made aware of gaps and problems in TOE, But once you've outlined the current limits of Darwinism, what more does ID offer? What does it say? What does it explain?
So far, nothing. ID isn't an explanatory theory in its own right. It's just a restatement of the first half of the Dover School Board's policy: a discussion of gaps in Darwinism.

I send my children to Biology class to learn about life and the processes of life.

Yes, and studying evolution certainly falls into that category.

Then why are more and more scientists each year turning to ID / Creation in seeking for the truth no matter where the truth leads. What about Irreducible Complexity? Or, the information contained in DNA? What about the Anthropic Principle? The appearance of design? ID doesn't have any meat to it?? It doesn't if you don't want it to.

I have no idea why scientists are "Turning to ID/Creation". I doubt that's the case, but you are certainly free to provide examples. Either way, ID still doesn't postulate anything. What would an ID textbook look like? what would chapter 1 be about? other than gaps in our current understanding of evolution? ID is purely negative, with no explanatory mechanisms of its own.
If there are, in fact, scientists that are "turning to ID/Creation", one must ask, where are the data in support of their position? Where is the fully developed positive case for the necessity of ID, backed by appropriate evidence, that one might expect? It is simply lacking.

I thought the whole concept of evolution was that you wanted organisms to respond to changes in their environments, not to "withstand" these changes? If they "withstand" these changes, how do they evolve?

In order for any evolutionary process to change one species into a new species in the sense that Darwin's tree of life suggests, you need to add information to the species. In order for one species to evolve into a higher species information must be added. Mutations do not add information to the DNA molecule. Mutations are simply the scrambling of information that is already there. Most mutations are neither frequent nor beneficial.

The whole concept of evolution is that populations of organisms change over time due to random mutations that are "selected" for or against by that organisms environment. You could say that populations of organisms "withstand" changes in their environment and survive through random mutations that are beneficial. To use an oft-cited example, think of the white peppered moths in the U.K. that turned black, thereby making them more difficult to spot by predators on the newly soot-covered birch-trees. There was always a small percentage of those moths that had the gene for dark wings, but those moths were quickly eliminated, as they were more easily spotted by predators on the light-colored trees. Once the trees were covered in soot, the environment had changed. suddenly, that small percentage of moths with dark wings, which had heretofore had a terrible disadvantage compared to their light-winged bretheren, now had a huge advantage. The white moths stood-out, and were easily picked-off by predators. The dark-winged moths were more difficult to spot, thereby giving them a survival advantage, which they passed on to their offspring, and so on. As time went on, after many generations, the population as a whole eventually consisted of descendants of the moths with a gene for dark wings.

I'm not sure what you mean by "adding information". If a mutation is beneficial, over time, after many generations, it will become endemic in the population at large.

No they're not. They're quit different. Micro-evolution is nothing more than adaptation within a species. There is no change into a new species. Macro-evolution is the supposed change from one species into a new species over time. In recent years, evolutionists have hijacked the word "adaptation" and renamed it "micro-evolution" because they saw an avenue to spin their evolutionary rhetoric through something that was widely accepted. Micro-evolution is a misleading term and one of many reasons why I am opposed to the forced learning of it in public classrooms.

Your continued explanation using a small bowl of black paint is even more rhetoric that proves nothing and even fails to make a meaningful point. As is true regarding the rest of your post

My analogy of the black paint slowly turning to white over many generations sums-up the role of micro/macro evolution quite simply. Lots of micro-evolution results in Macro-evolution. It's not that difficult to grasp. At any point in my example, the resulting "generation" is virtually indistinguishable from the previous generation, but over time, after many generations, you wind-up with a totally different "species".
Incidentally, "Micro/Macro" are not scientific terms. They were coined by creationists who wanted to concede that evolution may be responsible for small changes within a species, but couldn't account for speciation. Evolution is evolution, and yes, "Micro" evolution operates on exactly the same principle as "Macro" evolution, over different time scales. Evolution is simply the change of alelle frequency in populations of organisms over time.

Or, is it that evolutionists don't like the overwhelming evidence that points to a Creator God because if there is a chance that God is real then there is a pretty good chance that he (the evolutionist) is going to be held accountable for his actions and thoughts and teachings. This is why so many folks are opposed to the God of the Bible. Man, in his sinful, prideful, selfish state does not like the idea that one day he will have to give an account of himself to God. Evolution has long since run out of true scientific support. What little there may have been in the beginning was gone long ago. You, have a decision to make. Are you going to continue to ignore God, or turn to Him for His mercy. One way or another, you will bow down to Him someday.

What overwhelming evidence? Where is the evidence, that anyone with the inclination could go out and use to prove or refute ID?
When did TOE run out of true scientific support? What is the evidence that shows it to be a worthless theory?

Why is it so difficult to believe that some people may simply be curious about the diversity we clearly see around us, and want to find the reasons for it? The reason the theory of evolution by natural selection enjoys the success that it does is because of the mountains of evidence supporting it. The theory is 150 years old, and since then, the mountain of evidence has only gotten bigger. No competing theory has yet come close to explaining the diversity we see. It has nothing to do with "hating" God, any more than the theory of electro-magnetism or gravity does.

 

[sheshisown]

Hello fellow posters~

Well, I wrote an essay a few semesters ago that point out (with sources included) some well known facts about evolution. I include it here, certainly, even the Darwinists are troubled over the failures of this defunct model to validate its claims. However, whether or not it is against the law to teach creationism is addressed, and I cite the current law. So if you are up to it may the Lord bless your reading...


Evolution Revolution

Darwin’s modern theory of evolution currently endorsed in the majority of science textbooks and taught in science classrooms across America is highly controversial. This debate began with the first radio broadcasted trial in 1925, defeating the Butler Act, an anti-evolution statute in Tennessee. In the 1980’s, debates flared again when scientists discovered DNA and microbiology. This research both provided possible mutational natural selection examples for common descent, and reversely unveiled the structured complexity of living cells; offering credence to both modern evolution and intelligent design theories. Evolution icons used in textbooks, have suffered decline and in some cases complete refutation. However, no overarching resolution has authorized comprehensive corrections to textbooks or obtained new science standards across the board. Therefore, one state after another is going to court to decide individual rulings for new science standards, and some are besieged with intelligent design confusions. This dispute is costly; one small town in Dover recently paid one million dollars in court fees when it began teaching intelligent design, because its school board feared indoctrination of its students into modern evolution theory. In opposition, the brochure for a recent book Science Evolution and Creationism, offered by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) may place modern evolution on an irrefutable pedestal by declaring in January of 2007 that, “There is no scientific controversy about Darwinian evolution. [Darwinism is] so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter it†(NAS 5). What would cause the most influential science organization in the country to state this during so much disagreement? Many Americans recognizing evolution’s flaws and the accumulating doubt about its evidential reality reignite the dispute, yet the NAS says there is no controversy and the theory need not be altered. Supporters of modern evolution theory claim that science standards must not be changed because criticism of evolution in the classroom will undermine science education in schools, while dissenters state that evolution theory problems are numerous and well-known, and that science textbooks indoctrinate students by continuing to use falsified icons to validate the fossil record, common descent, and natural selection, therefore science standards must mandate text modification and critical analysis of evolution theory.

The National Academy of Science uses a plea to fear in its recent book Science Evolution and Creationism stating that, “Criticizing evolution will undermine science education in our schools, and introduce non-scientific concepts about evolution into the classroom†(NAS 4). However, is the entire theory of evolution being doubted as to its validity, thereby undermining it? That depends on what one means by the word evolution. If one simply means small changes over time or even that living things are related by common ancestry there is no argument. Moths change color, bacteria build up resistance to antibiotics, domestic cats and leopards come from common ancestors. However, the concepts of universal common descent and of natural selection produced by random genetic mutations now form the core of modern evolutionary theory. It is true that other theories such as intelligent design, have sought to invade the science classroom. Although every attempt has been refuted and removed by the legal checks and balances in place in U.S. legislation. In his decision in Pennsylvania recently, Judge Jones III wrote,

"Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. . .however, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable[sic] alternative hypothesis, grounded in religion, into the science classroom†(Jones III).

Modern evolution theory predicts life origins as an unpredictable and purposeless process without discernable direction or goals. Yet, it is now clear that the failure of Darwinian natural selection and random mutation cannot account for much of the highly-ordered complexity we now see in biology. This is the crux of the fears projected by the NAS. A recent tact by the NAS to protect evolution theory’s position; was to use a poor analogy in their recent brochure comparing the theories of gravity and evolution saying, “Evolution stands on an equally solid foundation of observation, experiment, and confirming evidence as the theory of gravity†(NAS 8). However, even without a science degree reason designates gravity as an observed reality; to contradict it anywhere is disastrous. Although to criticize Evolution in the science classroom can build a solid analytical foundation for students, just as this type of inquiry does for all academics. Science must remain uncensored, and open to probing debate to thrive.

From evolution theory’s inception the fossil record has revealed ever widening informationless gaps which usurp the plausibility of common descent. Charles Darwin was aware of the many gaps in the fossil record and thought the best evidence to support his theory came from embryology. He surmised that early vertebrate embryos were very alike and as they developed became increasingly diverse. He concluded that this was not just evidence for common ancestry, it was, “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of [his theory]†(Darwin). But the fact is that vertebrate embryos actually start out looking very different, and then look fairly alike midway through their development before becoming different again as adults. In the 1860s, German Darwinist, Ernst Haeckel, made drawings of vertebrate embryos to illustrate Darwin’s theory. Haeckel misrepresented the midpoint of development as the first stage. He then distorted the embryos to make them look much more alike than they really are. His drawings of the vertebrate embryos of: fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals look extremely alike and provide false evidence for the evolutionary tree of life transitions extending from fish to man. However, actual photos of these early stage vertebrate embryos presented as evidence in Michael K. Richardson’s article; Anatomy and Embryology, show striking differences between them. Mr. Richardson was interviewed for Science in 1997 and said; “It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology†(Richardson). Sadly, biologists have known this fact for over a century. British embryologist Adam Sedgwick wrote in 1894 that the claim that, “[Vertebrate embryos are most alike in their earliest stages] is not in accordance with the facts of development†(Sedwick).

Among revered scientists who hold Darwinian evolution as a philosophy, there is strong dissent to the incredible allowance of this highly controversial “evidence†being presented to uninformed students; thus records Stephen Jay Gould in his article for Natural History in 2000. “We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks†(Gould). Two textbooks currently used in Ohio science classrooms still employ the Haeckle illustrations (see bibliography, with relevant page numbers) listed by the Discovery Institute Website these are: Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998, p. 223), and Albert Towle, Modern Biology (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1999, p. 291) (Staff). Is this an exception to the rule for biology textbooks currently used? No, a complete listing of ten textbooks used in U.S. classrooms is included in the attached reference in this essay.

A main factor in Darwin’s theory proving natural selection depends on the evolution of “beneficial†changes in species anatomy. The standard icon used in biology textbooks of a change that benefitted a species is the peppered moth story. These moths were predominantly light gray in the 1800’s before the industrial revolution; after pollution darkened tree trunks, the dark variety of peppered moths became more common. Bernard Kettlewell, a British biologist, theorized in the 1950’s that this change proved natural selection. The hypothesis he claimed was that the darkened moths were camouflaged to birds that normally ate them as the moths rested on darkened tree trunks. Kettlewell released captive peppered moths (both light and dark gray) by placing them onto nearby tree trunks and observed as birds ate the more visible ones. He then recaptured and counted the moths, finding the darkened moths more numerous. These experiments provided evidence for his hypothesis, and became the classic model of natural selection at work in biology textbooks for evolutionary theory which are often illustrated with photos of peppered moths resting on tree trunks. Tens of thousands of moths have been counted since Kettlewell’s experiment. In the 1980’s, biologists revealed through rigorous and repeated observations that peppered moths only rarely rest on tree trunks. University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent and his colleagues wrote in 1998 that “[although the classic story might be partially true] there is little persuasive evidence, in the form of rigorous and replicated observations and experiments, to support this explanation at the present time†(Sargent 318). What is most disturbing is that although this inaccuracy is documented, peppered moth camouflage-predation is still the primary example used in many science classroom textbooks across the nation. Also, since peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks, the photos in student texts are staged (dead moths are glued or pinned to tree trunks) to provide unavailable natural field evidence.

The recent discoveries in DNA have enlisted support for evolutionary natural selection stemming from genetic mutations. In theory mutations provide the changes in species not gradually possible in Darwin’s theory, but are necessary to the theory of common ancestry between species. Four winged fruit flies, genetically engineered, are another iconic example in science textbooks used throughout the United States. Fruit flies normally have two wings and two appendages that are balancers for flight. Four wings have been genetically engineered using the balancers on these insects, and appear in photos to offer evidence of how one insect evolves into another. Yet this mutant fly is no more than a crippled bug that cannot mate and has great difficulty flying. The inability to breed would soon eliminate this mutation should it ever occur outside the laboratory; therefore it provides no beneficial evidence for natural selection theory. A member of the National Academy of Science, Lynn Margulis, refutes mutations as a source for evolutionary specie development; “Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to [new species]â€Â. Modern evolution relies on random mutations selected by a blind and unguided process, none are meant to be “fashioned†in a laboratory. Biologists hoped that DNA evidence would reveal a grand tree of life where all organisms would be clearly descended. However, Jonathan Wells reveals weaknesses in DNA tree of life concepts in his book, Icons of Evolution saying; “Trees describing the supposed inherited relationships between organisms based on one gene or biological characteristic generally conflict with trees based on a different gene or characteristic (Wells).†This clearly challenges modern evolutions theory of universal common descent presuming that all organisms share a single common ancestor.

The icons of modern evolution theory are now discredited; the fossil record with its tree of evolutionary life is fractional, illustrations and photos in current science textbooks are frauds, gradual natural selection is biologically too complex, and mutations are proven of no benefit to validate the theory. All these weaknesses in modern evolution theory provide a very sparse evolutionary tree indeed. Especially as the complex specified engineering of organic cells bears down its evidential weight on the 150 year old theory of random mutations. Finally, adding to the drama, in February 2008 the Florida State Board of Education approved standards written by educators that overhaul the entire science curriculum, and mandate the teaching of evolution without criticism in Florida public schools. Further, the decision the Texas State Board of Education makes on the science curriculum this November will determine what every public school student in Texas learns about science for the next ten years. Also Jesse Hyde reports in the Dallas Observer that, “Because Texas buys more textbooks than every other state except California and publishers would rather not create separate editions for smaller states, the books ordered [t]here will end up in classrooms across the country†(Hyde). In further recognition this board's power, according to Hyde’s article, “In addition to overseeing the $25 billion Permanent School Fund (a perpetual endowment established in 1854 to help finance public education), the state board [in Texas} also reviews curriculum and approves textbooks†(Hyde 3). Soon, national science education may be a divided unruly mess of curriculums and agendas. In science, the truth or falsity of a theory is ultimately determined by comparing it with the evidence. It looks as if the public is ready to make some enormous changes, but will each ruling be fair? Teaching evolution theory objectively ought to be the goal of the revision of current science standards in all states and truth in science must also mandate removal of false evidence from every textbook.
Word count 2,989

Works Cited

Darwin, Charles. Origin of the Species. The Online Liturature library 23 May 2005. 10 March 2008 <hhtp://www.litureture.org/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-the-species/>.

Gould, Stephen Jay. Science and Culture. article, Natural History 2000. Discovery Institute 12 March 2008 <http://www.discovery.org/>

Hyde, Jesse. Battle Against Teaching Evolution in Texas Begins :Should creationism win out, textbooks throughout the country-not just Texas-will challenge the theory of evolution in science curricula Dallas Observer [Dallas, Tex.]
20 Mar. 2008, Alt-Press Watch (APW) ProQuest. San Jacinto Library, San Jacinto, CA. 5 Apr.2008
<http://www.proquest.com.proxylib.msjc.edu/>

Jones III, Judge. Focus on Science not Ideology in Setting science Standards Tampa Tribune 20 Mar. 2008, Ebscohost. San Jacinto Library, San Jacinto, CA. 9 Apr.2008 http://www.search.ebscohost.com/>


National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Internal Medicine of the National Academies (corporate author) Science Evolution and Creationism (brochure) 14 March 2008. 20 March 2008 <http://www.nasonline.org/>


Richardson, Micheal K. Science and Culture, Anatomy and Embryolog. article, Science 1997.
Discovery Institute. 14 March 2008
<http://www.discovery.org/>

Sargent, Theodore. Science and Culture, Evolutionary Biology article, 1998. Discovery Institute 12 March 2008 <http://www.discovery.org/>

Sedwick, Adam. Early Embryo Development. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science (1894): p.35. Science and Culture, Evolutionary Biology article, 1998. Discovery Institute 12 March 2008 <http://www.discovery.org/>


Staff, Discovery Institute. Science and Culture, 10 February 2008. Discovery Institute 14 March 2008 <http://www.discovery.org/>

Wells, Jonathan. Icons of Evolution, why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong. Berkeley: Regnery Publishing, 2000. Discovery Institute 12 March 2008 <http://www.discovery.org/>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Biology textbooks currently using the fraudulent Heackle illustrations in science classrooms: These texts have a ten year curriculum usage beginning in 2003.
I. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (5th edition, McGraw Hill, 1999)*

The textbook uses a colorized and slightly edited version of Haeckel’s original fraudulent drawings. This version obscures the differences between the earliest stages of embryos as egregiously as Haeckel’s original drawings did.
The text states: “The patterns of development in the vertebrate groups that evolved most recently reflect in many ways the simpler patterns occurring among earlier forms. Thus, mammalian development and bird development are elaborations of reptile development, which is an elaboration of amphibian development, and so forth (figure 58.16).†(pg. 1180)

II. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (6th edition, McGraw Hill, 2002)* (same as above text)


III. Textbook III. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998)

Haeckel’s original faked drawings are shown with a caption implying that vertebrate embryos are very similar at early stages: "An illustration of von Baer's law: three stages in the development of several vertebrates. All the vertebrates share many common features early in development; many distinguishing features of the classes and orders appear later." (pg. 653)

IV. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th edition, Wadsworth, 1998)

This textbook uses colorized versions of drawings derived from Haeckel’s earliest embryo stages that obscure the differences between the embryos.
The textbook states:"From comparative embryology, some evidence of evolutionary relationships among vertebrates. ... Adult vertebrates show great diversity, yet the very early embryos retain striking similarities"


V. Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (J.M.Lebel, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education for approval in 2003)

The text displays a graphic derived from Haeckel's original drawings, which fraudulently obscure nearly all of the differences between the various embryo forms.
The caption reads, “All vertebrate embryos closely resemble one another in early development.†(pg. 100) The implication is that this provides evidence for common ancestry.


VI. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (Wadsworth, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003)


VII. William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life (7th edition, Prentice Hall, 1999)

The drawing is not as bad as the others, but is still clearly derived from Haeckel’s drawings. (For example, the newborn chicken in the graphic is nearly identical to the newborn chicken in Haeckel’s drawings.) The differences between embryos are obscured, though not to the extent that Haeckel obscured them.
The section then uses the drawings as evidence for the modern theory of evolution, stating in the caption: "Similarities in the early stages of embryonic development suggest a common ancestor for these vertebrates." (pg. 583)


VIII. Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)

The text uses a graphic which is essentially a colorized adaptation of Haeckelâ€â¢s original drawings, and it obscures the differences between early embryos just as much as Haeckel did. The text states: “When biologists classify an animal, they look at the structure of its body and the way it develops as an embryo at the very beginning of life. The more similar two animals are in those characteristics, the more closely they are probably related.†(pg. 372)

Just a few pennies into the pot here... bonnie :D

 

[Ignatz]

“There is no scientific controversy about Darwinian evolution. [Darwinism is] so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter it†(NAS 5). What would cause the most influential science organization in the country to state this during so much disagreement? Many Americans recognizing evolution’s flaws and the accumulating doubt about its evidential reality reignite the dispute, yet the NAS says there is no controversy and the theory need not be altered.

This simply means that currently, there is no competing theory that possesses the explanatory power rivaling TOE. The theory may be tweaked here and there, but it is unlikely that it will be thrown out in its entirety. The only way the theory might be altered would be to provide evidence that some aspect of it was incorrect. Criticism of the theory, however, should be allowed. That's how science progresses. Any scientific theory needs to be able to withstand evidentiary criticism.

Judge Jones III wrote,

"Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. . .however, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable[sic] alternative hypothesis, grounded in religion, into the science classroom†(Jones III).

This sums-up the scientific objection to teaching ID in a public school biology class perfectly.

“Evolution stands on an equally solid foundation of observation, experiment, and confirming evidence as the theory of gravity†(NAS 8). However, even without a science degree reason designates gravity as an observed reality; to contradict it anywhere is disastrous.

True, and we can observe evolution as well.In our domesticated animals and plants, for example, although the selective pressure was provided by humans, instead of their environment, as in "natural selection".
Certainly students should be allowed to criticize evolutionary theory. This can be done perfectly well without resorting to untestable, supernatural explanations that advance our scientific knowledge on the subject not one iota. Even if a particular tenet of evolutionary theory were shown to be incorrect, that would not be de-facto evidence for ID.

Charles Darwin was aware of the many gaps in the fossil record and thought the best evidence to support his theory came from embryology. He surmised that early vertebrate embryos were very alike and as they developed became increasingly diverse. He concluded that this was not just evidence for common ancestry, it was, “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of [his theory]†(Darwin). But the fact is that vertebrate embryos actually start out looking very different, and then look fairly alike midway through their development before becoming different again as adults. In the 1860s, German Darwinist, Ernst Haeckel, made drawings of vertebrate embryos to illustrate Darwin’s theory. Haeckel misrepresented the midpoint of development as the first stage. He then distorted the embryos to make them look much more alike than they really are. His drawings of the vertebrate embryos of: fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals look extremely alike and provide false evidence for the evolutionary tree of life transitions extending from fish to man. However, actual photos of these early stage vertebrate embryos presented as evidence in Michael K. Richardson’s article; Anatomy and Embryology, show striking differences between them. Mr. Richardson was interviewed for Science in 1997 and said; “It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology†(Richardson).

Much of Darwinism has been shown to be incorrect in modern evolutionary theory, and evolutionary theory has changed a lot in 150 years. Incidentally, it is other biologists that discover these shortcomings, or point out the hoaxes/lies that some dishonest researcher made to further his/her career. The tree of life that you refer to is over 140 years old. The theory has evolved since then.

thus records Stephen Jay Gould in his article for Natural History in 2000. “We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks†(Gould). Two textbooks currently used in Ohio science classrooms still employ the Haeckle illustrations

Gould is absolutely right in his assessment. We should be astonished and ashamed that textbooks are still using these outdated drawings, (unless they are used to show the evolution of evolutionary theory ) Ideally, EVERY textbook in every class would contain the most current information and drawings. Gould also developed the theory of "punctuated equilibrium", where long periods of evolutionary stability are broken by shorter spurts of evolutionary change, perhaps sparked by external events such as climate change or the impact of a comet. The theory contrasts with more traditional evolutionists, who believe evolution is a slow, steady process occurring at a nearly constant rate.

Fruit flies normally have two wings and two appendages that are balancers for flight. Four wings have been genetically engineered using the balancers on these insects, and appear in photos to offer evidence of how one insect evolves into another. Yet this mutant fly is no more than a crippled bug that cannot mate and has great difficulty flying. The inability to breed would soon eliminate this mutation should it ever occur outside the laboratory; therefore it provides no beneficial evidence for natural selection theory.

The point is that this insect can, if under the right selective pressure, grow a second set of wings.
Jonathon Wells, who you mention in this essay, had some very strange things to say on the subject, in his book "Icons of Evolution", where he seems to claim that the idea that genes play a role in development (or even that DNA makes RNA makes protein) is some sort of conspiracy amongst "Darwinians". The reason for the additional wings is a mutation in the ubx gene. Fruit flies belong to the Diptera order of insects, which have two wings, while most other insects have four wings. From an evolutionary perspective, the reason fruit flies have two wings (instead of four) is due to a LOSS of function present in its ancestors. Thus, if this were used as an example of a beneficial mutation, then great care must be taken to explain this in its proper context. Wells' agenda has nothing to do with "informing" - he has stated clearly elsewhere that he has devoted his life to "destroying Darwinism"

The icons of modern evolution theory are now discredited; the fossil record with its tree of evolutionary life is fractional, illustrations and photos in current science textbooks are frauds, gradual natural selection is biologically too complex, and mutations are proven of no benefit to validate the theory.

While this is certainly a nice essay, all it has proven is that some textbooks use horrendously out-of-date illustrations, and that our current understanding of evolutionary theory has progressed as new information and evidence has been uncovered over the past 150 years of study. Wells, in particular, seems to think that the fact that we know more now than Darwin did, and that he was flat-out wrong on some points, means that TOE is incorrect. On the contrary, we have fixed his (and others) mistakes, and the Theory of Evolution is better supported and has more evidence supporting it than it ever has. The textbooks need to be updated.

Especially as the complex specified engineering of organic cells bears down its evidential weight on the 150 year old theory of random mutations.

Not sure what you mean by this, but, Yes, if the cells are engineered, then the mutations that created them are not random. Another thing about Wells' fruit flies- Spontaneous homeotic mutations, while rare, have been recorded historically. Butterflies normally have 6 legs, but in homeotic mutants, they can have 8 legs. A 9th century bronze statue contains 8-legged butterflies in front of Budda (see Gehring, 1998). In 1894, William Bateson published a book which included drawings of three different, naturally occurring homeotic transformations: an antenna into legs in a beetle, hind legs into hind wings in a moth (similar to the mutation in Wells' famous Four Winged Fly), and a mutation resulting in an antenna instead of an eye in a crustacean. As Wells mentions, the first homeotic mutant in Drosophila was discovered by Calvin Bridges, in 1915. This was a spontaneous mutation, in which the balancers are transformed into winglets; this mutation (bithorax) has been maintained continuously as a laboratory stock since then.

Teaching evolution theory objectively ought to be the goal of the revision of current science standards in all states and truth in science must also mandate removal of false evidence from every textbook.

I agree completely. The fact that there are school boards too lazy/broke to update their textbooks is indeed shameful. I agree that textbooks should include the most recent information available, as well as removing out-of-date information.

 

[smos]

Edit: [In response to disciple_of_truth's post]

smos wrote:
My case that it should be taught relies on the fact that by virtue of it being a scientific theory, it is unequivocally supported by the current evidence

What current evidence?

First off, what I'm saying is that the fact that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory (defined multiple times earlier) means that all evidence discovered has the potential to change it. Since there are so many articles and studies carried out related to evolution, it's fair to say that there is a constant growth in new evidence related to it. Since scientific theories are dynamic, and change based on evidence, it's also fair to say that the current theory of evolution is (by definition of a scientific theory) in-line with that evidence. Evidence that goes against the theory changes the theory to reflect that evidence.

I'll spare you (and myself) sifting through the hundreds of monthly research articles having to do with evolution and just point you to some references of evidence of the theory: 29+ Evidences of Macroevolution (Talk Origins), 15 Evolutionary Gems (Nature), Evidence of Evolutionary Transitions (Action Bioscience), etc. I also did a search on Google Scholar for articles with "evolution" in the title within the last year (2008-2009), limited to within the subjects of biology, life sciences, and environmental science. (And there's some pretty interesting stuff to be found, like this: Genome analysis of the platypus reveals unique signatures of evolution).

At the very heart of evolution we find that it is a religion. Many support this.

But why is evolution religious? On what are you basing this claim?

You're saying that any position that disagrees with religious beliefs is itself religious?

Yes.

Why?

So my belief that the sun isn't swallowed every night by a giant snake is a religious belief, even though I know that this isn't what happens based on my understanding of basic astronomy?

How can this be your belief if you know this doesn't happen?

This is just an argument of semantics. I'm using "belief" here as something that I hold to be true, like my belief that there are 336 dimples on a regulation golf ball (random example). If I had said, "so my position that the sun isn't swallowed by a snake every night is a religious belief?" it would be the same argument.

No, I would suggest that learning about evolution should be optional as in being incorporated into an elective class. Furthermore, I would suggest it to be taught as an idea but not as fact. It needs to be treated just as it is, pseudo-science. Let's keep real science in the science classroom and all forms of speculation and pseudo-science in a classroom where a student can choose to learn about these things if he/she so chooses.

It's already been covered that the ToE is indeed scientific (not pseudo-science), and as such is necessarily based on facts which all have the potential to alter the theory. In this way, the current theory is (by definition) in-line with all the current evidence, as discussed earlier. Being such a profound theory, I would think it should be required if teaching standards like that of gravitational motion or chemical bonding are not to be made "optional" as well.

Really? What facts have you observed? Can you site some of the pieces of "unambiguous evidence" that is continuously being added? Can you outline the mountain of solid, substantial, clearly defined evidence that you say evolution is based on? Can you list anything in support of evolution that hasn't already been refuted by the pros? You come in here and lay out this hugh claim without any citations. Now I say back it up!

See the beginning of this post for some links.

 

[jwu]

jwu wrote:
Please address my point that accepting the ToE is not required to pass those tests - the only thing that is required is to know what it is about. Stundents don't have to be Buddhists to learn about Buddhism in some class either, and to be required to pass a test on it, right?
The students are free to reject the ToE for whatever reasons - but learning about it is an entirely different matter.

Correct, as far as I know one only has to pass the test in order to receive credit. One does not have to accept evolution as truth. However, that is not the point of my argument.

Evolution is not even accepted as "truth" by evolutionists, but as provisionally correct and the currently very best explanation for the abundant diversity of life on earth...but that's a side issue.
As i understand your argument, it says that mere exposure to views that may contradict one's religious beliefs in school already constitutes a violation of one's constitutional rights. Did i get this right?

Furthermore, debating evolution verses creation does not address the question asked. You do not have to conclude one way or the other in order to answer the question. The background scenario and information has been clearly laid out and defined. We know what the laws say. Now, what say you?

Well, my second point was that if you don't want a debate about the merits of the ToE to drive this thread off topic, then you shouldn't make assertions in that direction either. If you do, then you have to expect that the other posters address them.

 

[disciple_of_truth]

For a theory to be deemed "scientific", it needs to follow the scientific method. Observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building define science.

Well, not exactly. The scientific method includes (generally in order) the following. A Question (or A Problem), Research, Hypothesis, Experimentation/Observation, Data Collection, Data Analysis, Conclusion. If your Conclusion proves your Hypothesis wrong or even partially wrong then you have to go back to the Hypothesis and start again from there. The problem with the Scientific Method is that scientists nearly always go into a problem with a pre-concived outcome.

It also has to be falsifiable, meaning that the theory can be proven wrong by looking at the evidence.

If there is no evidence then would the theory be wrong?

Advocates of ID must demonstrate how hypotheses based on it can be tested by experiment or observation. Otherwise, ID isn't science.

Don't advocates of TOE have to do the same thing?

It means that ID consists solely of current gaps in evolutionary theory,

No it doesn't. You should spend a little more time understanding ID before assuming such things.

Again, what makes Darwinism finite and falsifiable is its commitment to explain processes of evolution. Debunk one process, and evolutionists are forced to propose and test another.

Darwinism may be committed to explaining processes of evolution but, this still doesn't make it truth. What kinds of tests have evolutionists run in order to test a proposed process?

But once you've outlined the current limits of Darwinism, what more does ID offer? What does it say? What does it explain?
So far, nothing. ID isn't an explanatory theory in its own right. It's just a restatement of the first half of the Dover School Board's policy: a discussion of gaps in Darwinism.

You haven't studied ID/Creation much have you? ID is much more than what you suggest. It is by no means just trying to fill in the gaps of evolution. At least you admit there are gaps. No, ID completely and totally replaces evolution altogether.

I have no idea why scientists are "Turning to ID/Creation". I doubt that's the case, but you are certainly free to provide examples.

This is one more example of a lack of research, on the part of an evolutionist, to understand ID or Creationism prior to making assumptions and allegations. If you don't know the facts on this, why should we believe what you say regarding evolution? Have you seen the list? http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... php?id=660

Where is the fully developed positive case for the necessity of ID, backed by appropriate evidence, that one might expect? It is simply lacking.

Is it? I guess it is if you want it to be. By the way, where is the fully developed positive case for the necessity of evolution, backed by appropriate evidence, that one might expect?

As time went on, after many generations, the population as a whole eventually consisted of descendants of the moths with a gene for dark wings.

And thus, genetic information was lost in that population due to the fact that the moths carrying the gene for white wings were all eaten. Again, Darwinian evolution involves the addition of information in order for simpler species to evolve into more complex species. The only thing that you have proposed with the peppered moths is the loss of genetic information in an isolated population. When information is lost, evolution cannot progress to the next higher order of species.

My analogy of the black paint slowly turning to white over many generations sums-up the role of micro/macro evolution quite simply. Lots of micro-evolution results in Macro-evolution. It's not that difficult to grasp. At any point in my example, the resulting "generation" is virtually indistinguishable from the previous generation, but over time, after many generations, you wind-up with a totally different "species".

Maybe it would help if you could give us a real world example of how over many generations one species changed into a new species. Maybe you could cite an observation someone made or maybe an experiment that was done. I do understand your analogy of the paint but, doesn't it make better sense to explain what you mean using a real world example? Not just "micro" evolution but rather something that has been involved in "macro" evolution.

Consequently, what scientists today are calling "micro-evolution" is what most of us appropriately know as adaptation. Adaptation and/or "micro-evolution" (what ever you call it) does not produce new species of animals or plants.

What overwhelming evidence?

Trees, animals, grass, life, stars, mountains, oceans, the position of earth in the solar system, the position of the solar system in the galaxy, the position of the galaxy in the universe, the order and complexity of life on earth, the processes and functions of micro-machines inside of the living cells, the fact that we happen to have the perfect amount of oxygen in our atmosphere for life, the Crebs cycle, photosynthesis, the distance of the earth from the sun, the existence of Jupiter in it's orbit at the exact distance from the sun, the existence of amino acids, proteins, DNA and RNA, just to name a few of which I suggest you look into deeply rather than just scoff at them.

When did TOE run out of true scientific support? What is the evidence that shows it to be a worthless theory?

For me it ran out of true scientific support in about August of 2005 when I began to realize that everything I studied began to point towards God the Creator. A few of the evidences that make it a worthless theory have already been outlined in this thread. A lack of any further new evidence would suggest that the theory is nothing more than philosophical rhetoric.

Wells' agenda has nothing to do with "informing" - he has stated clearly elsewhere that he has devoted his life to "destroying Darwinism"

Where and/or when did he say this? Can you provide a source to support this statement?

True, and we can observe evolution as well.In our domesticated animals and plants, for example, although the selective pressure was provided by humans, instead of their environment, as in "natural selection".

And exactly what is it that we can observe in our domesticated animals and plants that is evidence for evolution?

The point is that this insect can, if under the right selective pressure, grow a second set of wings.

Actually, I think the point is that when this mutation happens it is not beneficial for the species to advance due to natural selection. Therefore, this new four winged species would not likely survive beyond the first generation. That's the point. Mutations are rarely beneficial.

On the contrary, we have fixed his (and others) mistakes, and the Theory of Evolution is better supported and has more evidence supporting it than it ever has. The textbooks need to be updated.

And if you were going to update these textbooks with current, modern day evidences what would those evidences be?

As Wells mentions, the first homeotic mutant in Drosophila was discovered by Calvin Bridges, in 1915. This was a spontaneous mutation, in which the balancers are transformed into winglets; this mutation (bithorax) has been maintained continuously as a laboratory stock since then.

As a laboratory stock. However, has it maintained itself continuously in nature? That is without any laboratory intelligence to help. Also, how does a mutated eight legged butterfly make it anything other than a butterfly with 8 legs? How do any of the mutations you cited provide evidence for evolution? Once again, mutations are rare and rarely beneficial.

 

[disciple_of_truth]

As it stands this thread has eroded into something I didn't really want yet it still holds tremendous value. I tried to keep things on track but, my own desire to share truth got in the way and consequently the whole thing just sort of got out of hand. That's ok. Let's keep it going if you wish.

I still need to address smos's latest and jwu's latest. I will do that soon. I especially want to address the evidences that smos referenced. But, that will be a few days due to some wolf hunting plans I have with a friend.

Also, I still want new opinions on the heading. "Evolution taught in High School - Violation of Rights?"
Thank YOu all and God Bless.

 

[John]

wolf hunting plans I have with a friend.

Dude not cool, lol

 

[Ignatz]

The problem with the Scientific Method is that scientists nearly always go into a problem with a pre-concived outcome.

If somebody starts with the conclusion, then they are not following the scientific method, and any scientist that doesn't follow the scientific method can't call themselves a "scientist". A scientist may start with a "hypothesis", based on "observation", but that is not the same as a "pre-conceived outcome". A scientist follows the evidence, and draws conclusions from that. Starting with a conclusion and trying to make the evidence fit that conclusion is what proponents of ID in fact do; They take as fact that the universe was created by an intelligent force, and search for evidence that would appear to confirm that, ignoring evidence to the contrary.
Remember, Darwin didn't start out believing that all life derived from a common ancestor. He only came to that conclusion after all the evidence he uncovered pointed in that direction, and away from the commonly-held belief that each species was the result of a special, individualized creation. He followed the evidence, which is exactly what the modern ToE continues to do. In fact, now that we know about genes and DNA, we have more evidence than Darwin himself could have ever hoped for.

If there is no evidence then would the theory be wrong?

If there was no evidence for a particular theory, then there would be no theory at all.

Advocates of ID must demonstrate how hypotheses based on it can be tested by experiment or observation. Otherwise, ID isn't science.


Don't advocates of TOE have to do the same thing?

Absolutely, and they do.

Darwinism may be committed to explaining processes of evolution but, this still doesn't make it truth. What kinds of tests have evolutionists run in order to test a proposed process?

As jwu pointed out, ToE isn't considered "true" as much as "provisionally correct" and the current state of our understanding on the subject. As new evidence is discovered, the theory will be tweaked and changed to reflect our current knowledge.
Looking at the construction of the hip-bones of whales, for example, led scientists to hypothesize a land-dwelling ancestor. This hypothesized animal was, in fact, discovered.
Many transitional forms have been predicted/hypothesized and found in the fossil record since the publication of The Origin of Species; in fact, the abundance of documented "transitional forms" is staggering and well beyond what Darwin predicted scientists would be able to find. Transitional forms have been found showing the development of amphibians from fish, of birds from dinosaurs, of mammals from early tetrapods, of humans from a common ape ancestor, etc. Another hypothesis/prediction that has been tested by evolutionists concerns the fact that at present the only marsupials that exist live in North America and Australia, two remotely separated locations. The earliest known fossils of marsupials were from the Cretaceous period. With the understanding of continental drift scientists knew that South America, Australia, and Antarctica were all connected during the Cretaceous period. With this knowledge scientists PREDICTED that marsupial fossils would be found in South America and Antarctica, and indeed fossil marsupials were subsequently found on those continents, but have not been found anywhere else.
This is an example of TOE's usefulness and it's predictive value.

ID completely and totally replaces evolution altogether.

How does ID totally replace the ToE? Where is the evidence? What hypothesis/predictions can be made from it? How would these be tested? ID doesn't follow the scientific method. For instance, Below is an example that sums-up 2 different approaches to epidemiology.
You are an epidemiologist, and you are cataloguing the causative agents for diseases (let's pretend that we have no idea whatsoever what causes diseases). You focus on diseases that cause pus formation and fever. You look at disease 1 - caused by bacteria. Disease 2 - bacteria. 3- bacteria. 4-bacteria.....58 - bacteria.. 62 - can't find a causative agent yet... 77- bacteria... 

Now, a 'naturalist' would probably conclude:
'We see that bacteria are the causative agents in 76 out of 77 diseases with similar symptoms. The causative agent for the 77th disease is also likely a bacterium, though we have not yet identified it. We will continue to investigate.'


Apparently, the IDist would say:
'76 out of 77 diseases with similar symptoms were caused by bacteria. However, the 77th disease did not have bacteria as an identified causative agent. Thus, we conclude that the 77th disease was likely caused by an Intelligent Agent operating in unknown and unknowable ways. Further investigation into this disease is thus unnecessary, and speculating that the causative agent is just another bacterium is premised solely on ideology.'

One of those conclusions makes practical, logical, and scientific sense. The other does not.

This is one more example of a lack of research, on the part of an evolutionist, to understand ID or Creationism prior to making assumptions and allegations. If you don't know the facts on this, why should we believe what you say regarding evolution?

The "assumptions" and "allegations" I make of ID and creationism are based solely upon the claims made by their adherents: That a supernatural, all-powerfull intelligence is responsible for the diversity we see in the fossil record and the natural world, and that natural processes are inadequate explanations for these phenomena.
You are certainly under no obligation to take my word for the supremacy of the TOE in regards to answering questions of biodiversity. Much greater minds than mine have been answering these questions for 150 years.

Is it? I guess it is if you want it to be. By the way, where is the fully developed positive case for the necessity of evolution, backed by appropriate evidence, that one might expect?

The modern TOE is the current state of our knowledge on the subject, and as such, must be taken seriously. Anyone is free to provide evidence that the theory is incorrect, but the key word is "evidence". The TOE has mountains of evidence, collected over 150 years, and has been expanded and refined continuously. Evidence for The TOE can be classified in several ways. There is evidence of common descent, evidence of natural selection, evidence of modification of traits, and evidence of inheritance. The evidence for evolution can also be broken down by evidence supporting the historical occurrence of evolution and evidence that shows evolution is occurring. These days, the TOE can be supported almost solely by our understanding and knowledge of genetics and biochemistry, which shows that evolution is occurring and cannot but occur. Much of what people think about in terms of evolution today is still the same old evidence for evolution that was used by Darwin, things like fossils and comparative morphology, etc., but since the discovery of DNA the most important facts that we have learned about evolution come from the study of genetics, molecular biology, and biochemistry. It is also important to understand that the TOE makes testable predictions (See above paragraph about marsupials). The TOE is actually one of the most expansive, if not the most expansive, scientific theories. A wide array of predictions and verifications fall under the TOE. Science works by proving things to be false, not by proving things to be true. (which is why it's technically incorrect to refer to a theory as "true"). A scientific hypothesis or theory is proven to be false when evidence that contradicts the hypothesis or theory is found. With science we say that we believe something is "true" (for the sake of argument) when there is a means to prove it false and no evidence has been discovered that proves it false. In order for something to be considered "true", it also has to be testable - we have to have a way to try and falsify it. To date, over a broad spectrum of disciplines, no evidence has been found in nature that contradicts evolutionary theory. Many have tried, and many continue to try. There are countless opportunities to falsify evolutionary theory, and in no case has any evidence been found that does falsify it.

Also, you never answered the question. Where is the fully developed positive case for the necessity of ID, backed by appropriate evidence, that one might expect?

The only thing that you have proposed with the peppered moths is the loss of genetic information in an isolated population. When information is lost, evolution cannot progress to the next higher order of species.

All evolution needs in order to occur is that random mutations that occur in an individual organism will be selected for or against by that organisms environment. If the mutation is beneficial, and leads to increased survivability, then the genes for that mutation will statistically tend to become endemic (wide-spread) in the population. It is incorrect to speak of "higher" and Lower" orders of species. They're just different.

doesn't it make better sense to explain what you mean using a real world example? Not just "micro" evolution but rather something that has been involved in "macro" evolution.

Consequently, what scientists today are calling "micro-evolution" is what most of us appropriately know as adaptation. Adaptation and/or "micro-evolution" (what ever you call it) does not produce new species of animals or plants.

Again, many small changes in a population of organisms will, over time, result in big changes. Macro-evolution (speciation) has occurred. Macro-evolution occurs on colossal time-scales when compared with "adaptation" or micro-evolution, whichever you like. What the creationist usually wants to see, when they ask this question, is to be shown an example of a cat turning into a dog, for example. Cat's and dogs are, in fact, related, although the common ancestor of both didn't look much like either, and both animals underwent speciation several times before they appeared in their modern forms. In other words, you will never find an animal somewhere betwixt the two that has the head of a dog and the body of a cat, which is usually what IDists seem to want to see. Dogs and cats have a "common ancestor", Dogs did not "come from" cats, or vice-verse. Macro-evolution generally cannot be directly observed because of the time-scales involved. That is why I used the example of the paint. In the example of the shrew-like ancestor "turning into" a dog or cat, the same progression would apply. In no generation between a modern house cat and it's shrew-like ancestors, would the next generation look drastically different from it's parent generation. Macro-evolution has occurred when an organism can no longer produce viable offspring with it's parent group. This is also called "speciation". We have several plausible models of how speciation occursâ€â€but of course, it’s hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past. We can figure out that speciation events happened and often when they happened, but it’s more difficult to figure out how they happened. However, we can use our models of speciation to make predictions and then check these predictions against our observations of the natural world and the outcomes of experiments. Again, when speaking of Macro-evolution, the IDist usually wants examples of "Transitional forms". The first problem with transitional forms comes from the concept itself. "Transitional form" implies that the transitional form is not a "species" in and of itself and that the transitional form is like a short lived bridge between "two different species". This is not the case. Evolutionary theory holds that all life is a progression of individuals, and thus, in truth, every individual that has ever existed since life began is a "transitional form". Every organism that lives today is a "transitional form". YOU are a transitional form between your parents and your children.
TOE predicts that every living thing today has traits that are derived from ancestors, and thus it should be theoretically possible to find examples of the development of these traits in the fossil record. There are still several inherent problems with trying to find so-called transitional forms in the fossil record. The biggest problem is that it's impossible to verify whether or not a specimen represents an ancestor to present day life or to any other life form without seeing its DNA. The majority of life forms in the fossil record are probably not ancestors of modern life forms, they are organisms in lineages that went extinct, but they are nevertheless members of populations and can tell us about the types and combinations of features that did exist and were likely to exist among ancestors of modern organisms. The second problem is that the fossil record is sparse by nature because an extremely small number of the things that ever lived became fossilized, so we do not have a complete fossil record, and we never will. By nature, we have to work with a very limited set of data when working with fossils.

Trees, animals, grass, life, stars, mountains, oceans, the position of earth in the solar system, the position of the solar system in the galaxy, the position of the galaxy in the universe, the order and complexity of life on earth, the processes and functions of micro-machines inside of the living cells, the fact that we happen to have the perfect amount of oxygen in our atmosphere for life, the Crebs cycle, photosynthesis, the distance of the earth from the sun, the existence of Jupiter in it's orbit at the exact distance from the sun, the existence of amino acids, proteins, DNA and RNA, just to name a few of which I suggest you look into deeply rather than just scoff at them.

I never scoffed at ANY of these phenomena, each and every one of them is fascinating and absolutely worthy of our study. but please, show what the evidence is that any of these things could not have been produced by natural processes. What is the evidence that shows only a super-intelligence could have produced these things? what is the evidence that the naturalistic explanations we already have for these things are provably false?

For me it ran out of true scientific support in about August of 2005 when I began to realize that everything I studied began to point towards God the Creator. A few of the evidences that make it a worthless theory have already been outlined in this thread. A lack of any further new evidence would suggest that the theory is nothing more than philosophical rhetoric.

I'm sorry to hear that. However, that doesn't mean that the TOE ran out of "true scientific support". It has mountains of true scientific support. Again, I encourage you to list any evidence that contradicts our current naturalistic explanation for these phenomena.

Wells' agenda has nothing to do with "informing" - he has stated clearly elsewhere that he has devoted his life to "destroying Darwinism"


Where and/or when did he say this? Can you provide a source to support this statement?

(My) Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

from:Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.-1st paragraph

by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.-Berkeley, CA

And exactly what is it that we can observe in our domesticated animals and plants that is evidence for evolution?

The fact that they are domesticated, for starters. They have undergone changes at the genetic level due to the selective pressure applied by humans. This is the heart of evolution, the difference being that the selective pressure was applied by humans, rather than the environment, as in the wild. In both cases, changes that were beneficial to the organisms survival are "selected" for.

Mutations are rarely beneficial.

More to the point, most mutations have no effect at all. But not all.

And if you were going to update these textbooks with current, modern day evidences what would those evidences be?

I would place special emphasis on current genetics, and less time on using fossils when discussing TOE. (Fossils are interesting, but this would be an improvement as I see it). What we have learned from the study of DNA is that small genetic changes can result in major changes to the form and structure of organisms. For example, a single genetic mutation will cause a grass seed from a plant that came from parents with smooth or hairy seeds to have large spikes, resulting in the development of the sandspur.
The most significant discovery that has impacted our understanding of evolution is the discovery of DNA. What Darwin and other evolutionists that came prior to the discovery of DNA were primarily able to do was present evidence for the historical occurrence of evolution. What these people were not able to do, however, was fully explain how evolution actually took place, because they did not know how reproduction and inheritance actually work. Today DNA itself is at the center of our understanding of evolution, because DNA is really where evolution "takes place".
Present day evolutionary theory does, however, still contain the basic principles that were laid out by Charles Darwin, and I would keep those in any biology textbook. Those principles are:
• Common descent - All life on earth comes from a common ancestry, and thus all living things are related to other living things.
• Modification through reproduction - All living things on earth come from other living things, and when new livings thing are created there is a potential for the manifestation of novel traits.
• Mechanisms of selection - Living things that survive and produce offspring generally pass-on the their traits.

How do any of the mutations you cited provide evidence for evolution?

Again, evolution is simply the change of allele frequencies in a population of organisms over time.
We KNOW evolution happens. The THEORY of evolution describes HOW it happens, just like the theory of electromagnetism doesn't try to prove that electromagnetism exists, we already KNOW that it does. The theory just describes HOW.
If an organism undergoes a genetic change, and that change becomes wide-spread in that organisms group, evolution has occurred. In the lab experiments I mentioned, the fact that selective pressure was provided by humans instead of nature is irrelevant. They evolved. If you kept applying selective pressure to subsequent generations of those flies, you would eventually produce a generation that is unable to produce viable offspring with the original control group. That's speciation. That's evolution.
The cichlid fish of African lakes are textbook examples of rapid speciation in nature. Observations of the cichlids in Lake Victoria demonstrate the environmental and molecular basis of evolution of the visual system (seen as a change of vision genes, male coloration and female preferences) leading to speciation by sensory drive through both natural and sexual selection. The sensory drive hypothesis predicts that adaptation in sensory and signalling systems of the fishto different environments can cause premating isolation between populations. It also provides evidence that speciation can occur through sensory drive without geographical isolation. Adaptation of the fish's eyes to its visual environment can bias females to mate with different males according to their coloration. This sensory preference can contribute to the formation of new species.

As a side note, all apologies to Disciple_of_truth for my hand in derailing this thread-I generally try not to do things like that, and it's always embarrassing to me when I find that I have not addressed the posters original question and head off on some tangent.
I certainly commend you for being as gracious as you are for allowing this thread to continue. Again, Disciple, I'm sorry, and Thank You.

To answer your original question, I would say that no, teaching evolution in a high school biology class is not a violation of that students rights, as it is not a religious claim. It is the state of our understanding on the subject, and has evidence that anyone is welcome to study, or go out and find evidence that shows it to be incorrect.

 

[disciple_of_truth]

Ignatz wrote:As a side note, all apologies to Disciple_of_truth for my hand in derailing this thread-I generally try not to do things like that, and it's always embarrassing to me when I find that I have not addressed the posters original question and head off on some tangent. I certainly commend you for being as gracious as you are for allowing this thread to continue. Again, Disciple, I'm sorry, and Thank You.

Nah, forget about it. In fact, if anyone derailed this thread it was me myself. I have the tendency to do that to myself. If you had any hand in it I forgive you totally.

To answer your original question, I would say that no, teaching evolution in a high school biology class is not a violation of that students rights, as it is not a religious claim. It is the state of our understanding on the subject, and has evidence that anyone is welcome to study, or go out and find evidence that shows it to be incorrect.

Your honest answer is much appreciated and has been recorded. Thank you. On a side note, I guess I must have taken for granted that not everyone on these forums was a believer. Please don't anyone take that personally. I just mean to say that I am approaching this question from the perspective of a Christian with a Biblical world-view and expected answers to come from folks with the same perspective. It seems that thus far, most people that have responded do not hold to a Biblical world-view.

I still intend to respond to smos and jwu as well as just a few followup responses to Ignatz soon. You have all raised some very important points that I would love to address and will make every effort to do so. I'm just trying to figure out if these things might be better served by a few new topics or a few new one-on-one debates. What say all you on this?

Finally John, you might be happy to know, no wolves yesterday.

 

[Ignatz]

On a side note, I guess I must have taken for granted that not everyone on these forums was a believer. Please don't anyone take that personally. I just mean to say that I am approaching this question from the perspective of a Christian with a Biblical world-view and expected answers to come from folks with the same perspective. It seems that thus far, most people that have responded do not hold to a Biblical world-view.

I totally understand, I mean, it IS a Christian website. I think this forum in particular is of special interest to folks with a more scientifically-minded world-view, wether they are secular or Christian.
I certainly took no personal offense to anything said by you or others, and I think we can all agree that debating these things is "fun", albeit in a frustrating way. (I can feel my heart beating in my throat when ever I see that somebody has responded to one of my posts, and I have to take a moment and psych myself up before I can read it. It's proving to be a great aerobic workout).

I'm just trying to figure out if these things might be better served by a few new topics or a few new one-on-one debates. What say all you on this?

I'm happy with whatever keeps the back-and-forth going, though I sort of like the fact that anyone can jump in with their 2 cents.
-That's just my 2 cents

 

[disciple_of_truth]

jwu wrote: Evolution is not even accepted as "truth" by evolutionists,

I wished someone would tell that to our high school science teachers. Let's face it. The majority of the world thinks it is true. Meaning they accept it as truth because they have been taught it as truth.

As i understand your argument, it says that mere exposure to views that may contradict one's religious beliefs in school already constitutes a violation of one's constitutional rights. Did i get this right?

No. When someone is forced to learn about an idea that conflicts with their religious beliefs then their 1st amendment rights are being violated? I'm not talking about a "mere exposure" here. That makes it sound so innocent doesn't it? No, the key word here is FORCED. If a student is required to take the class then they are "forced" to learn about evolution. Are they not?

Well, my second point was that if you don't want a debate about the merits of the ToE to drive this thread off topic, then you shouldn't make assertions in that direction either. If you do, then you have to expect that the other posters address them.

I tried two times to re-rail this thread after my initial post. If you would simply look back through the posts starting from the beginning you might come to the same conclusion that I hardly made any assertions in any direction in attempt to drive this thread off topic. After two attempts to fix the diversions I figured I simply was not going to be able to hold this together. Thereafter, I felt there were some related things that needed to be address and so I began to address them. Maybe you would have me just roll over and take it. But, I'm not one to sit back and allow the evolutionists to hijack my thread without interjecting some sense of truth and reality. You build your own thread and you can manage it yourself the way you see fit.

I am sorry. I am a rather abrasive person who loves truth and find it hard to turn away when I feel like the Word of God is being prostituted. Please forgive me. And I know that my forth post lead to the all out destruction of my own thread. But, it was my thread and that is that.

 

[disciple_of_truth]

In a previous post I asked smos to provide some current evidence that supports the theory of evolution.
In response smos wrote the following:

First off, what I'm saying is that the fact that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory (defined multiple times earlier) means that all evidence discovered has the potential to change it. Since there are so many articles and studies carried out related to evolution, it's fair to say that there is a constant growth in new evidence related to it. Since scientific theories are dynamic, and change based on evidence, it's also fair to say that the current theory of evolution is (by definition of a scientific theory) in-line with that evidence. Evidence that goes against the theory changes the theory to reflect that evidence.

I'll spare you (and myself) sifting through the hundreds of monthly research articles having to do with evolution and just point you to some references of evidence of the theory: 29+ Evidences of Macroevolution (Talk Origins), 15 Evolutionary Gems (Nature), Evidence of Evolutionary Transitions (Action Bioscience), etc. I also did a search on Google Scholar for articles with "evolution" in the title within the last year (2008-2009), limited to within the subjects of biology, life sciences, and environmental science. (And there's some pretty interesting stuff to be found, like this: Genome analysis of the platypus reveals unique signatures of evolution).

So, in response to this I make the following statement:

What constitutes evidence? What makes something become evidence that supports evolution?

I hereby challenge smos to choose one of the above so-called evidences for me to analyze and pick apart in attempt to point out the scientific rhetoric and assumptive language that constitutes the majority of these so-called "evidences for evolution".

However, this will not take place here within this thread. I challenge smos to a One-on-One Debate. This new thread (once approved) will be titled "Evidence for Evolution (disciple_of_truth vs. smos). Please see this thread in the One-On-One Debate forum.

What say you smos?

 

[disciple_of_truth]

disciple_of_truth wrote:
At the very heart of evolution we find that it is a religion. Many support this.

smos wrote:
But why is evolution religious? On what are you basing this claim?

The fact that religion is defined as a belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power and/or a particular system of faith and worship and/or a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

Evolution, by it's current definition is the belief in a superhuman controlling power (i.e. "nature") and the worship thereof. Some evolutionist worship Darwin, some worship the theory of evolution itself, some worship the false science involved and yet others simply worship the creation. Anytime one replaces the Word of God with a man made idea (lie) the exchange the truth of God for a lie and worship the creation rather than the creator. Most people don't even realize it.

Furthermore, it is religion because it requires faith. Some say it requires an enormous amount of faith to believe in it simply because there is little to no truthful and honest scientific evidence that proves its validity.

Finally, it is religion because it has become the pursuit or interest to which most of the world ascribes supreme importance. Why else would it be such a hot topic for so many today?

It's already been covered that the ToE is indeed scientific (not pseudo-science), and as such is necessarily based on facts which all have the potential to alter the theory.

No it hasn't. Maybe it's been covered in your mind or maybe in some other world but, nobody in this thread has covered that ToE is scientific. What "facts" is it based on? I'm sure you are aware by now that I have challenged you on the evidences. We'll have to see where that leads us in terms of facts.

 

[Ignatz]

No it hasn't. Maybe it's been covered in your mind or maybe in some other world but, nobody in this thread has covered that ToE is scientific.

I realize that you are responding to something that smos wrote, but since you stated that: "Nobody in this thread has covered that ToE is scientific", and I am certainly nobody....

I would suggest going over some of the responses above for "coverage" that ToE is scientific, and not religious, as you claim. Additionally, below is some more coverage. I'll concede that wether or not you accept ToE as correct or not is not the issue here. Anyone is free to doubt whatever they like, but to state that a Scientific Theory that follows the "Scientific Method" is inherently religious, and not scientific, is simply false.

Science is based on evidence. Religion is based on faith. Using the word "faith" as you do would suggest that my believing that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around, is a matter of "faith". It isn't. It doesn't matter what one may personally believe, it can be independently confirmed by anyone that the Earth does, in fact, revolve around the sun, regardless of what their "faith" on the matter is. In fact, once you have confirmed evidence for a particular phenomena, it ceases to require "faith".

Science adapts and changes as new evidence emerges. Religion does not. The ToE is Scientific, and thus not Religious, because it is based on evidence, not faith. In other words, one is not required to believe anything on insufficient evidence. With science, and with any tenet of ToE, if there is no evidence, you have to go back and start over. Religions do not do this. Moreover, the ToE has changed from it's inception due to new evidence, (most notably due to new evidence revealed by biochemistry and genetics), which is something religions do not do. The ToE isn't based on divine revelation, or meditation/prayer, and It doesn't require the worship of anything. The ToE employs the scientific method, which all scientific theories must do, and it is completely non-religious.

Developing a scientific theory by the scientific method typically involves a number of steps:

-Observing something that is unexpected or unusual. Perhaps something that has been detected for the first time.

-Gathering as much evidence as possible about the phenomenon.

-Creating one or more hypotheses that might explain the observation

-Designing a test that will give predictable results if the hypothesis is true. (Sometimes the opposite is done: a test is designed to attempt to prove that a hypothesis is false, in order to eliminate it from consideration.)

-Conducting the test; check the results. Determine if the hypothesis has merit.

-Restarting, if the hypothesis has no merit.

-If successful, publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal.

-Independent duplication of the above steps by others to confirm that the conclusions are reproducible. If they can withstand repeated attacks by other scientists, it will eventually become accepted by the scientific community as a valid theory. There is nothing "religious" about this process.

Also, In order to be deemed "scientific", the theory must be "falsifiable", and the theory of evolution could theoretically be falsified at any time. Finding absolute evidence of a screwdriver, or the remains of a camp fire, or a human burial site imbedded in a rock layer with trilobite fossils would suggest that major revisions to ToE are necessary, since such a discovery would show that modern life forms existed at the same time as trilobites did. Religion doesn't behave anything like this.

I'll also repost a blurb I wrote in response to you a couple of days ago, which you seem to have ignored, which again illustrates the "scientific-ness" of the ToE

The modern TOE is the current state of our knowledge on the subject, and as such, must be taken seriously. Anyone is free to provide evidence that the theory is incorrect, but the key word is "evidence". The TOE has mountains of evidence, collected over 150 years, and has been expanded and refined continuously. Evidence for The TOE can be classified in several ways. There is evidence of common descent, evidence of natural selection, evidence of modification of traits, and evidence of inheritance. The evidence for evolution can also be broken down by evidence supporting the historical occurrence of evolution and evidence that shows evolution is occurring. These days, the TOE can be supported almost solely by our understanding and knowledge of genetics and biochemistry, which shows that evolution is occurring and cannot but occur. Much of what people think about in terms of evolution today is still the same old evidence for evolution that was used by Darwin, things like fossils and comparative morphology, etc., but since the discovery of DNA the most important facts that we have learned about evolution come from the study of genetics, molecular biology, and biochemistry. It is also important to understand that the TOE makes testable predictions, which is a requirement for any scientific theory. (See above paragraph about marsupials). The TOE is actually one of the most expansive, if not the most expansive, scientific theories. A wide array of predictions and verifications fall under the TOE. Science works by proving things to be false, not by proving things to be true. (which is why it's technically incorrect to refer to a theory as "true"). A scientific hypothesis or theory is proven to be false when evidence that contradicts the hypothesis or theory is found. With science we say that we believe something is "true" (for the sake of argument) when there is a means to prove it false and no evidence has been discovered that proves it false. In order for something to be considered "true", it also has to be testable - we have to have a way to try and falsify it. To date, over a broad spectrum of disciplines, no evidence has been found in nature that contradicts evolutionary theory. Many have tried, and many continue to try. There are countless opportunities to falsify evolutionary theory, and in no case has any evidence been found that does falsify it.

Also, you never answered the question. Where is the fully developed positive case for the necessity of ID, backed by appropriate evidence, that one might expect?

Evolution, by it's current definition is the belief in a superhuman controlling power (i.e. "nature") and the worship thereof. Some evolutionist worship Darwin, some worship the theory of evolution itself, some worship the false science involved and yet others simply worship the creation.

This is not the "current definition" of evolution. Not at all. "Superhuman"? Really? It's just plain-old nature. Are you suggesting that "nature" doesn't exist? And the claim that scientists "worship" nature is ridiculous. Honestly, there is no "worship" involved. Equating the study of nature using observation, hypothesis testing, publication and verification with the way a religious group worships its God makes absolutely no sense. Do scientists "worship" gravity? Do they "worship" geology? This really is a horrible mis-use of the word.

The Theory of Evolution has been explained ad nauseum in this thread and others, and to put forth such a gross mis-representation seems a little dishonest at this point.

Evolution is the non-random survival of traits caused by random mutations in populations of organisms over time, through natural selection.

It is not "the belief in a superhuman controlling power and the worship thereof".
That is religion.

 

[disciple_of_truth]

Ignatz wrote:
The modern TOE is the current state of our knowledge on the subject, and as such, must be taken seriously. Anyone is free to provide evidence that the theory is incorrect, but the key word is "evidence". The TOE has mountains of evidence, collected over 150 years, and has been expanded and refined continuously. Evidence for The TOE can be classified in several ways. There is evidence of common descent, evidence of natural selection, evidence of modification of traits, and evidence of inheritance. The evidence for evolution can also be broken down by evidence supporting the historical occurrence of evolution and evidence that shows evolution is occurring. These days, the TOE can be supported almost solely by our understanding and knowledge of genetics and biochemistry, which shows that evolution is occurring and cannot but occur. Much of what people think about in terms of evolution today is still the same old evidence for evolution that was used by Darwin, things like fossils and comparative morphology, etc., but since the discovery of DNA the most important facts that we have learned about evolution come from the study of genetics, molecular biology, and biochemistry.

Ok, but can you show me the evidence? I cannot take "TOE" seriously if I don't have the evidence in front of me. I have no obligation to provide evidence that the theory is incorrect if I am not first provided with evidence that supports the theory. And yes, the key word IS "evidence". Not just a bunch of statements saying there are "mountains" of evidence. I want to know what specific evidence you have to support toe. For instance, when you say "there is evidence of common descent" then please provide us with that particular evidence so we can understand it for ourselves. Or, when you say "there is evidence of natural selection" then show us what that evidence is. It is one thing to say there is evidence for something and quit another to provide the evidence on demand. If you claim that "our knowledge and understanding of genetics and biochemistry shows that evolution is occurring", then please explain what specifically from these fields of study proves evolution is occurring.

Also, you never answered the question. Where is the fully developed positive case for the necessity of ID, backed by appropriate evidence, that one might expect?

I am sorry, I forgot to address this properly. Here it is.
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:21 - God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:27 - God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Genesis 2:3 - Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
Genesis 2:4 - This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
Genesis 5:1 - This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.
Genesis 5:2 - He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.

Firstly, God's Word says that He "created" the heavens, earth, sea monsters, birds, man, plants and animals etc. He "created".

Genesis 1:3 - Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
Genesis 1:6 - Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
Genesis 1:9 - Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.
Genesis 1:11 - Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, {and} fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.

Secondly, God created all of these things how? By speaking them into existence. "God said". He spoke and stuff appeared and things happened.

Genesis 1:12 - The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:21 - God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:25 - God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Finally, each living creature and plant that God creates gives rise to it's own kind thus, the phrase "after its kind".

Scripture alone contains the "fully developed positive case for the necessity of ID". What about the appropriate evidence you say?

Firstly we have the following.
Psalm 19:1 - The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

So, we have scripture to tell us that God's handy work is clearly seen and understood by simply observing His creation. All we have to do is look outside and see His creation which is the appropriate evidence that we might expect.

All evolution needs in order to occur is that random mutations that occur in an individual organism will be selected for or against by that organisms environment. If the mutation is beneficial, and leads to increased survivability, then the genes for that mutation will statistically tend to become endemic (wide-spread) in the population.

More to the point, most mutations have no effect at all. But not all.

How often does a beneficial mutation occur in a species then? Mostly never? Can you cite any specific examples?

It is incorrect to speak of "higher" and Lower" orders of species. They're just different.

If you believe in "common descent" then certainly there must be some cases where certain simpler or lower order species gave rise to more complex or higher order species through many successive generations. If not, then are all species currently at the same level of order and complexity? So a human has the same complexity as an amoeba?

Macro-evolution (speciation) has occurred.

Again, I'm going to need some evidence for this.

What the creationist usually wants to see, when they ask this question, is to be shown an example of a cat turning into a dog, for example.

No, not really. Most ID/Creation Scientists are much smarter than you give credit. I personally happen to be a scientist and teacher of science who just needs some specific, viable and honest evidence for the claims you are making in this post.

Cat's and dogs are, in fact, related, although the common ancestor of both didn't look much like either, and both animals underwent speciation several times before they appeared in their modern forms.

Once again, where's the evidence to back this up?

Dogs and cats have a "common ancestor", Dogs did not "come from" cats, or vice-verse.

What is that common ancestor and what is the evidence for this?

Macro-evolution generally cannot be directly observed because of the time-scales involved.

No kidding? Look, just because what you proposed with the paint slowly changing shades over a long period of time when single drops of another color of paint are added, none of that proves anything in regards to evolution. That is an analogy, not evidence. Just because it works with the paint does not mean that's how it works in nature. If it did work like that then the fossil record would be replete (well supplied) with "progressive" forms of species. However, it is not.

Macro-evolution has occurred when an organism can no longer produce viable offspring with it's parent group. This is also called "speciation".

Any examples?

We have several plausible models of how speciation occurs

A plausible model is NOT evidence nor is it an example.

but of course, it’s hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past.

So, how then are you so certain that these events have taken place? Why are they no longer taking place? Has evolution stopped?

We can figure out that speciation events happened and often when they happened, but it’s more difficult to figure out how they happened.

I can tell you both when and how. Approximately 5,790 years and 4 days ago God spoke life into existence. It's that simple.

However, we can use our models of speciation to make predictions and then check these predictions against our observations of the natural world and the outcomes of experiments.

Again, models and predictions are NOT evidence nor are they examples. Besides, what observations of the natural world are you going to check these predictions against? You just got done saying that "it’s hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past".

Every organism that lives today is a "transitional form".

So, prove it.

TOE predicts that every living thing today has traits that are derived from ancestors, and thus it should be theoretically possible to find examples of the development of these traits in the fossil record.

That's right, I'm with ya bro. Go on.

There are still several inherent problems with trying to find so-called transitional forms in the fossil record. The biggest problem is that it's impossible to verify whether or not a specimen represents an ancestor to present day life or to any other life form without seeing its DNA.

Ahh, bummer dude.

The majority of life forms in the fossil record are probably not ancestors of modern life forms, they are organisms in lineages that went extinct,

Well, that's too bad. I had high hopes there for a minute.

but they are nevertheless members of populations and can tell us about the types and combinations of features that did exist and were likely to exist among ancestors of modern organisms.

What happened to the fossilized ancestors of modern organisms. Why can't we just look at those to see first hand the types and combinations of features that did exist and were likely to exist among ancestors of modern organisms.

The second problem is that the fossil record is sparse by nature because an extremely small number of the things that ever lived became fossilized, so we do not have a complete fossil record, and we never will. By nature, we have to work with a very limited set of data when working with fossils.

I'm sorry. Well, I guess the fossil record doesn't do much to provide us with any evidence or examples of evolution.

please, show what the evidence is that any of these things could not have been produced by natural processes. What is the evidence that shows only a super-intelligence could have produced these things? what is the evidence that the naturalistic explanations we already have for these things are provably false?

DNA. DNA is information. Information only comes from intelligence.

However, that doesn't mean that the TOE ran out of "true scientific support". It has mountains of true scientific support.

Can you point to any specific scientific support, evidence or examples?

Again, I encourage you to list any evidence that contradicts our current naturalistic explanation for these phenomena.

Yah, see above. God's Word and the Creation itself.

The fact that they are domesticated, for starters. They have undergone changes at the genetic level due to the selective pressure applied by humans.

Exactly what changes at the genetic level have cat's and dog's undergone that makes them domesticated? Is "domestication" a dominate or recessive trait? What selective pressures have been applied by humans. I'm a scientists. Please be specific.

None of this is evidence. This type of rhetoric always leaves more questions than it answers. Cat's have always been one of two things throughout all of history. They have either been wild or domestic. Either way, their all still cat's. Just because some cats have been domesticated doesn't mean those same cat's will eventually evolve into some other species of animal.

disciple_of_truth wrote:
And if you were going to update these textbooks with current, modern day evidences what would those evidences be?

Ignatz wrote:
I would place special emphasis on current genetics, and less time on using fossils when discussing TOE. (Fossils are interesting, but this would be an improvement as I see it). What we have learned from the study of DNA is that small genetic changes can result in major changes to the form and structure of organisms.

None of this is evidence.

For example, a single genetic mutation will cause a grass seed from a plant that came from parents with smooth or hairy seeds to have large spikes, resulting in the development of the sandspur.

Does not prove evolution and is not evidence for evolution. Adaptation does not prove "Macro-evolution".

The most significant discovery that has impacted our understanding of evolution is the discovery of DNA.

The discovery of DNA is quit damaging to toe as indicated above. DNA itself does not constitute evidence for toe nor is it an example of.

What Darwin and other evolutionists that came prior to the discovery of DNA were primarily able to do was present evidence for the historical occurrence of evolution.

What evidence?

Today DNA itself is at the center of our understanding of evolution, because DNA is really where evolution "takes place".

Again, the existence of DNA is not evidence for evolution.

Present day evolutionary theory does, however, still contain the basic principles that were laid out by Charles Darwin, and I would keep those in any biology textbook. Those principles are:
• Common descent - All life on earth comes from a common ancestry, and thus all living things are related to other living things.
• Modification through reproduction - All living things on earth come from other living things, and when new livings thing are created there is a potential for the manifestation of novel traits.
• Mechanisms of selection - Living things that survive and produce offspring generally pass-on the their traits.

Again, what would be the modern day evidences that support the theory of evolution? None of what you have stated here constitutes evidence nor are there any examples here.

We KNOW evolution happens. The THEORY of evolution describes HOW it happens

Listen, just because a theory describes how something happens doesn't mean that it really happens. And based on the lack of evidence and examples that you've provided I would NOT say that "we know evolution happens".

We know that electromagnetism exists because we can observe it and we can test it. The theory of evolution does not prove evolution just like the theory of electromagnetism does not prove electromagnetism. So if "we know evolution happens" then can you give me any specific evidence that it does happen and/or examples of it happening?

If an organism undergoes a genetic change, and that change becomes wide-spread in that organisms group, evolution has occurred.

You mean micro-evolution right? As in "ADAPTATION".

In the lab experiments I mentioned, the fact that selective pressure was provided by humans instead of nature is irrelevant. They evolved.

On the contrary, the fact that selective pressure was provided by humans is very much relevant. Could one have expected to achieve the same results if the system was left to nature (that is if no human pressure was applied)? Probably not. Why is it then that we automatically think that just because we can do these things in the laboratory they also happen this way in nature?

In order for the change in the flies genetic makeup to occur, human intelligence was needed. It took man's intelligence to cause the change. Nature alone did not cause it. So, how then can we assume that it occurs like this in nature?

If you kept applying selective pressure to subsequent generations of those flies, you would eventually produce a generation that is unable to produce viable offspring with the original control group. That's speciation. That's evolution.

Anyone who has ever tried this experiment would discover that the very first generation of genetically mutated offspring would be much less likely to reproduce with either an original or a mutated fly in nature. In nature, this first generation would eventually be bred out of the population. It's one thing to apply human pressure (intelligence) to the system and quit another to allow nature to deal with things on it's own. Besides, a fly that has been mutated due to being subjected to human laboratory scientific pressure does not constitute neither speciation nor evolution. Even so, in the end, the fly is still a fly.

Observations of the cichlids in Lake Victoria demonstrate the environmental and molecular basis of evolution of the visual system

Observations don't demonstrate anything.

The sensory drive hypothesis predicts that adaptation in sensory and signalling systems of the fishto different environments can cause premating isolation between populations.

Predictions are one thing. Observation(s) and data that support the prediction(s) are what is needed here. Just because a hypothesis predicts something does NOT mean that it's going to happen or that it has happened. We need evidence.

It also provides evidence that speciation can occur through sensory drive without geographical isolation.

Neither a hypothesis nor a prediction can provide any evidence for anything.

Adaptation of the fish's eyes to its visual environment can bias females to mate with different males according to their coloration. This sensory preference can contribute to the formation of new species.

You're basing all of this on what the "hypothesis predicts"?

Besides, a cichlid fish is still a cichlid fish regardless of how it adapts to it's environment. In the beginning you still have a cichlid fish mating with a cichlid fish which in turn produces a cichlid fish. Humans of various colorations mate with each other all the time and have done so for several thousands of years. You and I are no more or less human than Martin Luther, King David or Moses.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Here is a good wiki linking the mounds of evidence in favor of common decent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Evidence_from_genetics

I do know of course that wiki isn't a real source, but the source material at the bottom has many great reputable sources for you to thumb through.

Besides the mounting evidence we are learning through gene sequencing, one of the best arguments is the layering of the fossil record. I can't imagine any other explanation.

I do have one question for you, ID, in my understanding, accepts evolution. It just adds that their must be a designer to go along with it. You seem to be totally against evolution, yet a supporter of ID. With my understanding of ID, that is an untenable position.

Is my understanding of ID wrong?

 

[disciple_of_truth]

It's already been covered that the ToE is indeed scientific (not pseudo-science), and as such is necessarily based on facts which all have the potential to alter the theory.

I do think it is true enough that toe is scientific in that it makes an attempt to observe the natural world and even "test" hypothesis. This should be done as an attempt to collect and document data that should ultimately support the theory of evolution. There is no doubt that true scientific research has been conducted on toe in a manner that is conducive to real science and through the use of the scientific method. Along these lines one could say that toe is scientific.

However, it becomes pseudo-science when the so-called evidences are revealed. Both historical and contemporary evidences used to support evolution have been one or more of the following; inadequate, incomplete, misleading, unscientifically assumptive, ignorant of the broader range of evidences or scientifically misguided. These kinds of evidence never have and never will truly support toe or any other theory. If there are no real honest and truthful observations and data to support a theory then I would have to conclude that the theory is based on false science. Toe appears to be scientific on the outside but it fails to provide the necessary evidence to support it.

Another way to look at it is like this. Satan uses toe to deceive by taking what appears to be truth and wrapping it around a great big lie. Remember, deception closely parallels truth.

Anyone is free to doubt whatever they like, but to state that a Scientific Theory that follows the "Scientific Method" is inherently religious, and not scientific, is simply false. Science is based on evidence. Religion is based on faith.

I didn't say that a "Scientific Theory that follows the "Scientific Method" is inherently religious, and not scientific". You must have misquoted me. That's OK, I'll attempt to explain what I said and meant.

Continuing on with my response from above I would like to add that because the so-called evidences in support of toe are one or more of the following; inadequate, incomplete, misleading, unscientifically assumptive, ignorant of the broader range of evidences or scientifically misguided, and none of these evidences can, by themselves or together, prove that evolution has occurred or is occurring, then one must either trust in the process of evolution by faith and/or take it on faith that someday some real honest evidence will be provided. Toe is, thus, a science of "faith" and since science cannot be founded on "faith" then toe cannot be real science. What is left then is a system of belief based on faith in something that we cannot observe and/or faith in something that we don't know exists (evidence). Thus, because, as you say, religion is based on faith, toe is a religion.

The "evolution is a religion" topic may be better dealt with through the establishment of a new topic. Just a thought.

In fact, once you have confirmed evidence for a particular phenomena, it ceases to require "faith".

That's right. And that's why toe is simply a belief system requiring faith. None of the evidence has been confirmed to support toe.

Science adapts and changes as new evidence emerges. Religion does not.

I beg to differ. There are many religions that continuously change over time depending on the culture of the day and all other kinds of reasons. Some religions even claim to receive new revelations daily or weekly consequently forcing changes to their doctrine on a regular basis. The Roman Catholic church changes like a chameleon becoming whatever it needs to become to suit its sin. But there are three things that I know of that don't change and those are God, His Word and Truth.

You don't have to continue to "teach" me about the scientific method anymore. I am fully aware of what it is, how it is used, how it can be misused and how it can be abused. I've been a student of science for 29 years a teacher of it for 18 years and a science fair coordinator for 13 years.

I'll also repost a blurb I wrote in response to you a couple of days ago, which you seem to have ignored, which again illustrates the "scientific-ness" of the ToE

This has been addressed above in a previous post.

"Superhuman"? Really? It's just plain-old nature. Are you suggesting that "nature" doesn't exist?

Why would I suggest that nature doesn't exist? It is ridiculous to suggest that I suggest that. Let me try to explain. Yes superhuman. Now we know that it requires human intelligence to design and build a robot. The robot is not even living. A living organism is way more complex than a robot. You're saying that nature created living organisms. Since nature is, of course not human, then it must be "superhuman" since it has the ability to create living organisms which is more than any human can do. And since you say that it is just "plain-old nature" that causes this than isn't nature the controlling power? Additionally, how often have you or someone you've known referred to "nature" as "Mother" (i.e. Mother Nature). It seems that even nature has a human like identity.

The main point here is that toe is a belief system based on faith in evidence that we cannot see or doesn't yet exists.

And the claim that scientists "worship" nature is ridiculous. Honestly, there is no "worship" involved.

Really. How do you know that? Are you all knowing? God's Word says it is so.
Romans 1:25 - For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

It seems to me that the majority of the world is enslaved in some way or another to this idea of evolution. This enslavement comes in many forms. Not everyone "worships" the creature or nature or creation as the word worship might imply. But, make no mistake, their are many who do and do so in many ways. There are some who do so and don't even know it. Check out the definition of worship. wor - ship: adoration or devotion comparable to religious homage, shown toward a person or principle. You see, worship does not have to be towards a someone, it can also be towards something. And yes, I think it is safe to say that there are some people, even scientists, who worship things like gravity and geology and such. However, gravity, unlike toe, is a real existing force of nature. It can be tested and observed. Geology is a field of study that, unlike toe, contains real, solid, true, observable and even testable evidences. Therefore, neither of these would be considered faith based belief systems.

The Theory of Evolution has been explained ad nauseum in this thread and others, and to put forth such a gross mis-representation seems a little dishonest at this point.

But no one has yet pointed me to any real evidence. I think my assessment of toe is quit honest indeed.

 

[disciple_of_truth]

VaultZero4Me wrote:
Here is a good wiki linking the mounds of evidence in favor of common decent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o ... m_genetics
I do know of course that wiki isn't a real source, but the source material at the bottom has many great reputable sources for you to thumb through.

As you may know, I have challenged smos to chose one of the pieces of evidence he cited in an earlier post. This challenge can be found in the One-On-One Debate forum under the title "Evidence for Evolution (disciple_of_truth vs. smos) ". If he fails to respond then I will open it up to others so that we might pick through each evidence one at a time to see if there really is any evidence to support toe.

Besides the mounting evidence we are learning through gene sequencing, one of the best arguments is the layering of the fossil record. I can't imagine any other explanation.

What specific evidence have we learned about through gene sequencing? What exactly about the layering of the fossil record becomes positive evidence for toe?

I do have one question for you, ID, in my understanding, accepts evolution. It just adds that their must be a designer to go along with it. You seem to be totally against evolution, yet a supporter of ID. With my understanding of ID, that is an untenable position. Is my understanding of ID wrong?

I think your understanding might be a little wrong, but not totally. Also, I suppose I have been somewhat misleading about my position regarding ID. I have often yet wrongly associated ID with Creationism (ID/Creation) and should not be doing that because the two are distinct.

Darwinists continually confuse ID (Intelligent Design) with Biblical creationism (Creationism). Creationism holds that a Supreme Being (the God of the Bible) created the heavens and earth and all that are in them. There are two types of creationists, young earth and old earth.

Young earth creationists take the six day creation account of Genesis as literal (six, 24 hour days), and believe that the universe is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Also, young earth creationists believe that most fossils were deposited during Noah's flood. Additionally, many accept "adaptation" (micro-evolution) as God's means of allowing changes within a species (NOT the all out transformation from one species into a different species.)

Old earth creationists accept a broader interpretation of Genesis and hold that contemporary scientific dating places the age of the earth at roughly 4.5 billion years old and the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years old. They accept "micro-evolution" as God's mechanism of adapting species to suit their environments. Some even accept "macro-evolution" as God's mechanism for the all out transformation of one species into completely different species.

ID is often confused with Creationism but, it is very different from it. ID does not begin with an interpretation of Genesis. In fact, ID proponents include Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and even agnostics. ID begins with critical observations of the natural world. ID looks for patterns in nature that are best explained as a product of intelligence. Because of what the natural world revels about itself, IDists reason that designing intelligence must be responsible for these patterns found in nature. ID does not make any prior assumptions of divine activity but, rather, it relies on methods developed within the scientific community for recognizing intelligence. ID does not identify the designer. The identity of the designer goes beyond the scientific evidence for design.

The majority of ID proponents believe in some form of creation, but not all. As you know even Richard Dawkins proposes that life on earth was created by some other beings on some other planet who then seeded earth with that created life. If that's not a definition of an IDist then what is, right? I suppose that some IDists actually accept micro-evolution and some might even accept macro-evolution.

I personally am a modern day scientist as well as an ID proponent, a young earth Creationist who believes in the God of the Bible and also believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and that He alone is the only way to eternal life in heaven. I believe that the Bible is God's revealed Word and Truth to man.