Dorothy, Toto and Darwin - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-05-2005, 10:15 AM   #1
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 11:50 PM
Dorothy, Toto and Darwin

But seriously... these questions are the latest in tactics by pro-creationists/anti-evolutionists.

I'd love to hear some educated responses to these questions, if anyone has the time or inclination.

What Some Students
Are Asking Their
Biology Teachers
Critics of evolution are supplying students with prepared questions on such topics as:

The origins of life. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth - when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?


Darwin's tree of life. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?


Vertebrate embryos. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry - even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?


The archaeopteryx. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds - even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?


Peppered moths. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection - when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?


Darwin's finches. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection - even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?


Mutant fruit flies. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution - even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?


Human origins. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?


Evolution as a fact. Why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact - even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
__________________

__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 10:43 AM   #2
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 12:50 AM
Re: Dorothy, Toto and Darwin

Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris

Evolution as a fact. Why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact - even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
I can comment on this last one. I was educated mostly in public schools, and all of my background in science beyond a 3rd-grade level is from public schooling--and in Pennsylvania (that is, an East Coast, "liberal" state by comparison to, say, Arkansas). I was never told the evolution was fact. I was told that it was a well-supported theory, but that it was never (and as such cannot be) "proven" as, say, gravity can be proven.

What many "creationists" fail to remember is that, at the conclusion of The Origin of Species, Darwin himself acknowledged that evolution could not be ultimately responsible for the creation of life; that is, the ultimate responsbility for creation, according to Darwin, lies with God. I know this because we debated this subject in my confirmation preparation classes when I was a wee lassie, and the pastor of my church actually distributed photocopies of the relevant passages of The Origin of Species.

Just saying.
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 10:51 AM   #3
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 11:50 PM
Quote:
I was never told the evolution was fact. I was told that it was a well-supported theory, but that it was never (and as such cannot be) "proven" as, say, gravity can be proven.
Right, the most prudent teachers make sure this is clear. But most are careless about it.
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 10:53 AM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:50 PM
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html

All of these "questions" come from Jonathan Wells' book, "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong," and, as the above site shows, is a seriously flawed book that's just propaganda for creationist/intelligent design folk.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 10:57 AM   #5
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 10:50 PM
The only fact is we don't know 100%. To me you can't ignore certain evidence, it's right there before your eyes.

I don't understand those that believe 100% that 7 days and bam here we are. And I don't believe 100% that by some cosmic accident we're here either.

For those that take Genesis at face value are ignoring science and fact. Those that take certain theories of evolution as fact are ignoring the holes.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 10:57 AM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:50 PM
Re: Re: Dorothy, Toto and Darwin

Quote:
Originally posted by pax
I was never told the evolution was fact. I was told that it was a well-supported theory, but that it was never (and as such cannot be) "proven" as, say, gravity can be proven.
I don't think anything in science above criticism. "Theory" in science is not the same as "guessing." I think that when people say that they have a "theory" about something, what they really mean to say is that they're guessing, or, at most, have a "hypothesis" (educated guess).

The theory of gravity was rewritten over the last few years, because the original theory was disproven. But, here's the difference with science: everything can be rewritten with the proper evidence. Creationists presuppose that if elements of evolution are proven to be wrong, then that automatically means that they're right. No, even if 19th century Darwinism was ripped into 50 million different pieces to reform a new theory of evolution, one thing won't change: that creationism is a quackery that has no place in science class.

If gravity can be rewritten, then nothing says that evolution can't be rewritten as well.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 11:01 AM   #7
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 11:50 PM
Melon,

The page/site you refer to seems to have an equal amount of fanaticism - quotes on Wells like:

Quote:
For someone who self-righteously passes judgment on figures in textbooks
And now I see why - it's a usenet archive.
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 11:01 AM   #8
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 12:50 AM
I've often wondered why we, as people of faith, can't acknowledge the change and development of species over time in response to the environment--which is all the theory of evolution says, really--while at the same time ascribing ultimate responsbility for creation to God. Why is it not possible that evolution is a system "designed" as it were by God for the flowering of creation? As the all-powerful and all-knowing, God surely could have done this/be doing this.

I find this easy to believe. Other people, I guess, not so much.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 11:06 AM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
The page/site you refer to seems to have an equal amount of fanaticism
How amusing. You ignore all the science on there and pick on an extraneous quote that's utterly irrelevant to all the arguments it brings up.

That aside, there's already a scientific rebuttal to all those questions you offered. I presented it.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 11:07 AM   #10
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 12:50 AM


You know, we *could* be having an interesting discussion on this instead of slinging sarcasm and pulling quotes out of context.

Just a suggestion.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 11:08 AM   #11
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pax
I've often wondered why we, as people of faith, can't acknowledge the change and development of species over time in response to the environment--which is all the theory of evolution says, really--while at the same time ascribing ultimate responsbility for creation to God. Why is it not possible that evolution is a system "designed" as it were by God for the flowering of creation? As the all-powerful and all-knowing, God surely could have done this/be doing this.

I find this easy to believe. Other people, I guess, not so much.
I think the problem is in the understanding of the theories along with arrogance. People want to know they are superior to all other animals and not "descendants" of animals. Often in the description of these theories humans are described as descendants and that isn't entirely true.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 11:09 AM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pax
I've often wondered why we, as people of faith, can't acknowledge the change and development of species over time in response to the environment--which is all the theory of evolution says, really--while at the same time ascribing ultimate responsbility for creation to God. Why is it not possible that evolution is a system "designed" as it were by God for the flowering of creation? As the all-powerful and all-knowing, God surely could have done this/be doing this.
I found the one major caveat to "intelligent design" that makes me dislike it. Rather than just accepting that God worked through science and evolution, it spends a lot of time trying to rip apart "natural selection" and tries to find "proof" that God steered evolution into the direction that it is today. In other words, like creationism, it's just another attempt for theology to encroach on science where it's unwanted.

Leave the theology to Sunday school. I believe fully in evolution, including natural selection, and I believe in God, as well.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 11:37 AM   #13
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 11:50 PM
scientific rebuttal + usenet =
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 11:39 AM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
scientific rebuttal + usenet =
scientific rebuttal + religion =

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 11:42 AM   #15
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 11:50 PM
if we must refer to Evolution as a theory, and tack on so many disclaimers, can we then refer to intellgent design and creationism as "not even theories"?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com